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 not sure what Queen Elizabeth had to do with colonial injustices (Someone may find a way to make a case for this), but the reality is Britain had already formed the Commonwealth in 1931. This was before she gained the throne, and most former colonies were engaged in some self-rule by then. India, the largest and most important colony, was already on its own, and the commonwealth itself continued to devolve further under Queen Elizabeth. This is much to her credit, she handled it all as well as one could given the history and realities of the time. So associating her with colonialism is really saying she took on a role that had a history of colonial injustice. Ok, fine. I have held roles in which my predecessors treated employees horribly. Am I associated with them? I'd say not.
Why she would hold any responsibility for the sins of her forebears is an odd thing. However, it's a concept which many people employ these days. Recently we saw examples of the oddity of looking into your past and apologizing for your family owning slaves.
My family wasn't even in the US when slaves were held, so it's not an issue for me.
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.
Regardless, I'm not responsible for their actions. They lived in a different time, using a different moral code, and different ethical structure. Slavery was 'normal' to them. Subjugation was a way of life they may not have liked, or they may have benefited from. It just was what they viewed as 'normal'. Apologizing for things you had nothing to do with is insane. So is being associated with your ancestors' bad behavior. We make our choices and live our lives. We don't make, and can't change, our ancestors'.
Too often people get caught up in mistakes like the commenter made and assume the sins of the parents must be passed on to the children. It's a concept which has sparked many wars. It is assumed a certain structure (in this case, the monarchy) is somehow 'responsible' for all the ills which previous members engaged. This is certainly not always the case - for if it were so, then black people should regularly say "despite their involvement in the enslavement of black people, and the oppression engaged after they were freed, I still vote for Democrats." Because Democrats WERE the party which most solidly supported slavery before and after the Civil War. Certainly, it is true the British Empire and many previous monarchs were thieves and murderers. Of course, all previous empires were full of leaders like this. Roman, Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, Holy Roman, Mongolian, Han, Hun, Germanic, Inca, Aztec, Mayan - the list is endless. We should all be ashamed of our past, but why would we be?
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.
