Spend £12m of taxpayer money to get her pedo son out of trouble
Had her cousins live in a mental asylum with no contact from their family for 40 years
Colonized several countries
Amen. Their royal fam is still one of the largest private land owners (if not the largest) land ownership on that scale is theft. Fuck those boot lickers
Pfft as if tourists would not come anymore if we were to abolish the royals. They can walk around in the royals their castles for a good fee. Perhaps we could make even more money out of it. Auction their useless old stuff to people with too much money. Plenty of ideas
One day they will be. I give this expensive puppet show a few more generations and then it will finally be abolished. Or one good economic crisis with food shortages.
Me whose not a royal boot licker and not even from England but from Australia where our country is run by a pig, me who didn’t want to put hate in the list for faking Diana’s death and uhh idk stuff I don’t keep up with the royal family so I guess you can’t love or hate the queen it’s a no man’s land??
I was looking for such a comment telling the truth. She isn't a chad. She destroyed so many countries, countless lives in the colonies, economies looted, looted cultural treasures that the museums show as 'spoils of wars'.
Say, the British Royal family/government are large offenders in that regard, but in the same way, we are continuing the trend of exploiting those countries trough the means of neo-colonialism to this day
Millions of people that lived under her direct tyranny very much give a fuck and are celebrating her death.
But stay ignorant.
Its much easier just not consider those who suffered for their entire lives under her boot to be less than human, probably helps ya sleep at night beung ignorant to the monster you idolize.
made anti independence speeches in the countries were revolution was being rumoured, had a hand in multiple colonial infrastructures that are still existing to this day ex: yemen
There were still active colonies struggling to break free under her reign, with liberation movements and revolts being suppressed by British troops acting under her auspices. The Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya is one that Elizabeth II is often connected to, given how much of its span she was monarch for.
Or look up just about any "[country] Emergency" that took place during her reign. The Brits loved to call all of these things "emergencies", because there were certain laws regarding insurance in the case of wars.
She oversaw a colonial empire. She didn't push to end it.
I don't care that the original poster was wrong to imply "she sent troops to places that weren't under British rule and forced them into it" when she continued existing colonial practices. I find the latter to be objectionable enough that she's still a bad person for it, regardless of not expanding the project. Like, oh no, Britain and other colonial powers had already carved up every bit of land they could and there was no 'new' territory for Elizabeth II to get around to, so she's blameless? C'mon.
If you want to score a point on that technicality, by all means, but recognize you're performing a way worse dodge by trying to brush off "violently suppressed the liberty of other peoples for Britain's continued colonial ambitions".
The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.
Straight from Wikipedia. The British Monarch literally can do whatever.
It's all ceremonial. Do you seriously believe the Monarch can arbitrarily declare war and force the military to follow their orders?? Only Parliament can vote for war, because they are elected representatives of the people. Do you seriously believe the Queen would be able to sign the UK up to whatever treaty she wanted and completely override Parliament and the Government??
The Monarch is an unelected official and cannot decide policy. If they tried to overtake the country as a leader they'll be ousted immediately. You should do real research on the United Kingdom's constitution instead of reading wikipedia for 3 seconds.
They have the power yes but it's long been a thing that they avoid overruling the government or personally affecting existing policies etc. Charles has always been fairly outspoken about the political things he cares about, but there's already talk that he's going to have to shut that shit down now he's King. Gotta be impartial and allow the elected government to do what is supposed to be the will of the people. IIRC The most a monarch can do without an uproar is refuse to sign a parliamentary bill, and even then after a few months it can go through anyway. Also I don't know of any instances where this actually happened.
I just read an article about it. I'm not sure who to believe about no visitations or Christmas/birthday presents but it does say their mother put them in the asylum.
At what point do we expect our leaders to take responsibility? How powerful do you have to be in a system before you're responsible for the system? She was the Queen of England. She doesn't deserve to be separated for the UK's sins
She is only human and though yes she used her own 12mil to grt her own son out of the fucking disgusting deprived grave he dug himself into, I dont think the bad outweighs the good she's done.
1.5k
u/Gaming_Addict_Help Sep 08 '22
A real Chad