We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, September 10. 2022
I am an avowed Anglophile. I spent 2 semesters studying there, visited 6 times, and am now listening to the British History Podcast. Britain and its history is just something with which I'm fascinated. I've never been a fan of the monarchy. The Queen, over time, I've come to respect. I'm not trying to say the monarchy is 'good' or that any monarch is special and should be deified or otherwise held in high regard. As Americans, it's hard to square how we could hold the British (or any) monarchy with any good feeling - we cast them off for plenty of reasons.
On the other hand, there are people who dislike the monarchy, and the Queen in particular. Mostly their reasons that aren't very good, because they don't understand the monarchy. The dislike I've seen is related more toward envy or general distrust of the institution. These people usually don't understand the role, the history, the value, etc. Few people know the Royal Family brings in far more than it receives from taxpayers. It's estimated, that the Sovereign Grant costs roughly $1.30 per citizen annually. Of course, this doesn't account for the amount of tax revenue the Royal Family itself generates from the taxes it pays, the revenue generated from tourism to see 'their' holdings, or just money spent marketing them as a 'brand'. They are as much a draw and benefit as it is a glorified 'welfare family' (a joke I used to make when I was younger and spent time there) - they actually pay for themselves when all is said and done. The monarchy's history is messy, ugly and sometimes difficult to fathom based on modern ethical standards. That has more to do with the differences in eras than ethics, though.
I saw a commentary on the Queen's passing. "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against Indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II — a blessed journey." Since I saw this particular one, I've seen several that are far, far worse (one from a linguistics professor at Carnegie Mellon, which was horrendous and had Sunny Hostin of The View defending. I will skip that one. It was so bad I'm amazed anyone with half a brain defended it. Some people are just truly awful and hateful. So I'll stick to this one comment, because it is more a backhanded compliment than outright hate. Even so, it's still misplaced.
I'm 100% certain if I go back far enough, my family owned slaves (or perhaps were slaves) at some point in Ireland, because Ireland was the center of the Viking slave trade. I could go even further back, I assume, to some ancestral tribe member among the Celts or Germanic tribes who may have owned slaves.
So the structure, or the system, can't really be the issue of complaint. All systems, all structures, have flaws. We can't dismiss the pyramids as useless garbage simply because slave labor was used to create them. They are wonders in and of themselves, despite any dark heritage they may have.
It's a very strange mindset being employed these days. Yet it is passing for "logical" when it's really logical fallacy.
Perhaps the commenter had a take not unlike John Lydon. As a person who enjoyed punk music, I felt it worthwhile to look into how one of the primary icons of punk - who held no love for the Queen - may have handled her passing. Lydon (Johnny Rotten) has grown up quite a bit, and with age comes understanding. Johnny was always smarter than he let on, of course, and wished her well. His previous commentaries were all part of the entertainment value he sought to provide. He said, several months ago, that he'd miss her, and as he let people know - he did.
The difference between Lydon's view and the comment I had read was that Lydon recognized her as a person, and her value, he didn't see her as part of a system. He didn't feel the need to overburden the moment with a statement about 'the system'. Death of an individual is rarely a statement on a system (unless the individual has made that particular system about them - as any cult of personality may).
I know, in Ireland, where my people came from, there were some celebrations. While I understand the basis for them, I find them disgraceful and outlandish.
She was an embodiment of grace under pressure. We can say many things about what the system she was part of is, was or represented. None of it had anything to do with her. All we can do is appreciate how, over 70 years, she grew in her role, adapted to her times, and found a way to represent her nation in as meaningful a manner as possible. She will be missed.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I saw a video of the speech she made when she was 21 and she said she'd dedicate her life to the service of the people of the United Kingdom. And I think she was determined to live by that for the next 85 years after she made that speech. I wish I could say I've always respected her, but for a while I was young and dumb. The more I learned about her, the more I grew to respect her.
The Queen was not a rich, idle slacker. She worked very hard at her job. She earned our admiration.
A very nice breakdown of the problem. I do wish people could see people as individuals rather than as the system!
Ireland and Europe were favorite areas for Muslim slavers to kidnap people and bring them back to Africa to be sold as slaves.
The Muslims enslaved more white people bringing them to African than there were black slaves brought to America. The slave issue is a strawman that is only effective when the people buying into it doesn't know history. That may be why the colleges don't want to teach history anymore.
It is a shame that so many, especially on the left, want to denigrate England and are using the Death of the queen as an opportunity to do so. The Queen lived an exemplary life and I seriously doubt any of the critics of her could match it.
There is a desire on the left to hate and at times like this it comes out without any filters.
As Joe Biden said in his condolence note, I mourn the Queen's passing, I always thought Bohemian Rhapsody was a great song.
But yes, she didn't choose to be Queen but willingly shouldered the burden and performed her role with grace and honor. We'll never see her like again. God save the King.
As I said here yesterday, ,you can debate whether or not kings and queens are needed in the world, but if you're going to have a queen, she was the kind of queen you should have.
I think one of my favorite quotes about her was that under her reign, the relationship between the queen and her ministers reversed from the ministers acting as advisors to the queen to the queen acting as a source of counsel and advice to the Prime Minister. Anyone who held the confidence of the likes of Winston Churchill and Margret Thatcher is definitely someone to be listened to, if not necessarily heeded.
It is hard to understand how it is that such a wicked monarchial system could leave all it's former colonies far ahead of their immediate neighbors in governence and wealth.
All one need do to refute the hateful "anti-colonial" rhetoric of the idiots like Uju Anya is to note the number of former British colonies that were given independence during Queen Elizabeth's reign. It is also not lacking in irony that many of them (Uganda comes to mind under cannibal Amin) that fared far worse since becoming independent of the Commonwealth.
In all fairness Wakanda is a great country in Africa.
Just a thought on "colonialism". Colonialism is defined as one country invading another and co-opting all the power and resources for themselves. Now think about South Africa. Every (almost every) black South African today is either an illegal alien (i.e. they entered South Africa illegally from a neighboring country) and after the got their the used their overwhelming power to co-opt the existing government and people. But unlike the British they didn't bring education and modern science and engineering to South Africa, they brought rape and murder.
The difference is morals. If you have to be colonized you should hope that the colonizers are intelligent and have a moral society, like Great Britain and NOT some shit hole country that rapes, robs and murders.
Borders, language and culture!
While I wish Queen Elizabeth mercy on her soul, as I would for any dead person, I would contest your view about the morality of Britain. Their abolition of primogeniture for Irish Catholics made the Great Famine almost inevitable and when it happened, they took our corn for their own benefit, rather than attempt to alleviate our starvation.
You missed a few things. During the great famine England sent food for those who were starving. For some reason everyone likes to leave that out of their history of the Irish famine.
But the English did indeed cause a lot of suffering in Ireland through an economic system that favored the rich English land owners and put the poor Irish people at a disadvantage. Some of this was in retaliation to what Irish people did to English people. But since the English were the winners of that game they take the brunt of the blame. I'm not saying that the Irish were to blame for their treatment under the British, they weren't. What I am saying is that the Irish fared no better and no worse than the very poor in England at the time. When the kings and lords own everything and the laws favor them that is what happens.
At no time did England lose 75% of her population, although I agree her aristocracy (more truly a post-Reformation kleptocracy) treated the common people despicably. There would have been some aid from Britain, of course, but the net movement of food was very much the other way. This is one reason why so many starved. I would also assert that the Penal Laws deployed against the Irish people who refused to apostatise rank among the most savage, thorough, oppressive and prolonged in history. Civilisation in Ireland had been older and more continuous than in England, but rarely has such a high civilisation been so completely liquidated.
"lose 75% of her population"
That was always a exaggerated story. Indeed people died but most immigrated to the new world. Historians searched for the graves of all those people who died and didn't find many. Since no one kept track no one knew who immigrated or to where. so the story of millions of deaths was born.
"refused to apostatise"
The catholic church used the Irish to try to get even with the Crown for throwing them out. The catholic church bears the blame for all those problems. The church went to war and used the Irish like pawns. The Irish, being Irish, were so stubborn they proudly took on that mantle.
Ah, I've scratched deeply enough to find you're just an anti-Catholic bigot beneath your bluff. This Catholic will pray for you.
LOL Of course that is what you would say.
Religion in the mid to late centuries was political, more political than politics and no one did it better than the popes. If you choose to someday study history you will discover that religion in Europe started and directed wars mostly for monetary gain. The bishops and priests were essentially spies. They did far more harm to England than they did to Scotland or Ireland because England was where the wealth was. You can believe that the church of England came about because a king wanted a divorce and the pope said no, but it was really about the obvious and detrimental spying that the "church" was engaged in at the time. There is a reason that there are bishops in chess and that the move sideways.
You never had a case you had bias and a chip on your shoulder.
One thing I failed to mention, which is useful to remember, is that Britain was a "colony" of Rome.
By all measures, it was brutalized, its people enslaved, killed, marginalized or pushed out.
When Rome finally left, Britain was much worse off than it had been prior to Rome's arrival. Yet, somehow, they pulled themselves up and out to eventually dominate the world for many years. Not saying that domination was all good, with unicorns, rainbows and ice cream for all - but they did leave behind a far better legacy at each colonial outpost than most colonial nations did.
Each nation was left with better governance than it had, arguably more wealth and capacity for wealth generation, better training, and more tools.
So even if you want to make the "horrid empire" argument, you do have to step back and lay things out in context. Britain was managed by an arguably far more horrid empire than any of the nations it oversaw. Mainly because Britain realized structure, contracts, and law were meaningful and useful. It didn't always conform with local history or customs, but it certainly improved or accentuated those that existed.
Considering what they came from, that's saying something.
I'm not aware of anything the Queen or any of the Royals have done in the last 40 years to stem the tide of endless immigration that is erasing and replacing the English people. What else mattered more?
You have hit the nail on the head. Years from now, those English citizens still alive but under constant threat by the then dominant immigrants will finally understand what their government did to them. Ditto for many other countries in Europe and soon the U.S. and Canada. It will take a bloody civil war for any of these countries to regain their sovereignty and I doubt that they will succeed. BUT, there WILL be a civil war and most probably started by and won by the replacement citizens. France might be first but maybe once every woman in Sweden has been raped by their diverse immigrants they might just wake up to what they have done.
Eliza Fletcher learned this lesson but sadly died minutes later before she could heed it.
Just curious, as I don't know, but what power did the queen have over immigration policies? Did she exert, or try to exert, influence over other political issues?
As an Englishman, my view of The Queen, in summary: She did nothing to defend her people from invasion nor to prevent the destruction of their country.
But did it with grace.
She didn't. The monarchy is ceremonial. Not to take anything away from her, but QEII was a figure head and a tourist attraction. So, most of the commentary about her is inane.
We don't know what, if any, influence she exerted behind the scenes; did she support Brexit, for instance?