I mean, to follow up, you just said that I gave you the impression that I thought that Liz making that speech would cause England to descend into 28 Days Later style anarchy. And at the same time, you think I’m arguing about minor political instability?
There’s obviously been a communication error here. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s entirely down to me.
Given that the British people willingly elected folks who were decidedly pro-atrocities in Kenya, what makes you think this speech would have any effect?
Besides scuttling the Monarchy, of course.
Just wanted to acknowledge this - fair enough and thank you.
Perhaps something that the Monarchy could do without causing a constitutional crisis while staying apolitical (I believe) would be to sponsor general PSAs to the effect: “we urge you to keep abreast of the policies enacted by your Parliament and if you disagree with any of them, or believe they are inhumane in any way, we urge you to write your concerns to directly to the PM and members of Parliament.” Not sure if that would be considered political or not, but it’s something that could result in positive effects.
“Major constitutional crises” and “minor political instability” aren’t mutually exclusive. The queen taking a public political stance would be an unprecedented violation of norms with no existing protocol for how to handle it. But it’s not going to start a war. It’s not going to mean people going hungry, or losing their homes. The most dramatic outcomes are either a genocidal government falls and is replaced by one that’s less murder, or the monarchy becomes even more of a useless relic of the past.
Neither of these are bad outcomes. If we were really lucky, we might have gotten them both.
My understanding is that the actions of the British government in Kenya were not widely known to the British public. Maybe I’m wrong, and Sir Anthony Eden ran on a successful “Let’s murder a bunch of Kenyans” platform, yeah, probably wouldn’t have much effect.
But if that’s true, that’s a hell of a swing in the electorate from five years previous, when they granted India independence under the assumption that the British public wouldn’t stomach the bloodshed necessary to keep her.
The emotion doesn’t surprise me. Seventy years as the one constant of British life and effectively this chapter of world history is not something that feels noteworthy until that constant comes to an end. Most people today do not consciously remember anyone other than her being the British monarch. This is a seismic change in history even if the monarchy itself is nothing more than a symbolic institution with no real power. Think about how much change in society and how the world functions took place during her time. Not that she had anything to do with it but there has been so many changes in science, technology, culture, world affairs, war, peace, media, space exploration etc. Some of these things like television she was the first monarch who got to embrace it and the first monarch of a mass media celebrity age. That comes with its downfalls too such as when she hit an unpopular level in the 1990s. But through all that change which was a sign of a society moving forwards she also represented a connection to the past. The first Prime Minister who served under her was Winston Churchill (born in the 1870s). The last Prime Minister who served under her for a matter of days is Liz Truss (born in the 1970s). She lived through the entirety of World War 2 and was old enough to consciously remember the country being bombed, her father was the Emperor of India, she met and hosted iconic figures of history who have been dead for half a century. She represented a connection to the past which is now closed.
That’s pretty interesting, especially given the last bit:
Even Charles sounds like he’s not persuaded that these conventions should be binding.
I am at this point perfectly aware of what the conventions are. What I’m deeply unpersuaded of is the idea that violating those conventions (Bogdanor’s word, not mine) carries a significant risk of harm worse than the atrocity it would’ve attempted to prevent.
And let’s be clear on what that atrocity was. In the words of a lead researcher who helped bring these events to general world attention, it was
To convince me that I’m wrong, you’ve got to persuade that the constitutional crisis engendered by the queen’s speaking out would have been worse than that. And to that point, Miller’s 28 Days Later reference isn’t too much of a hyperbole.
THe reference to the decolonialization of India is also on-point. I mentioned earlier that speaking up, even when you’re not supposed to, is a time-honored technique for achieving social change. India and the American South are the two examples I had in mind. And the queen was certainly better-positioned to speak up than King or Gandhi were.
Well, if I agreed with that analysis I’d agree the queen should have spoken out. But I laid out what I think the outcomes would have been above.
There was an incident at a school some years back, where it came out that a teacher repeatedly punched a kindergartener in the face, and the assistant teacher stood by and did nothing.
Everyone agreed that the teacher was in the wrong. But when it came to the assistant, people disagreed.
Some folks said she should have done something, because, after all, the teacher was punching a kindergartener in the face.
Others disagreed. “Her role isn’t to contradict the teacher, it’s to assist the teacher,” they said. “What would’ve happened to classroom discipline if she’d so blatantly violated her role? That would have upended the entire structure of education in that room!” and so on.
The first group kept saying, But the teacher was punching a kindergartener in the face. They couldn’t believe their opponents were ignoring that–or, while making allowances that nobody should punch kindergarteners in the face, were insisting that maintaining classroom conventions and hierarchies was more important. They even suggested that if the school’s structure forbade the classroom assistant from doing anything, that structure needed to change.
The second group seemed to be getting tired of hearing, But the teacher was punching a kindergartener in the face. Some of them even started mocking it with twee misspellings and called the first group hyperemotional and ignorant.
The first group didn’t seem to care that they were tired of hearing that. The teacher was punching a kindergartener in the face.
That’s correct. The concentration camps were misrepresented as education camps, a subterfuge that should have been transparent, but wasn’t. The first time I heard about these atrocities was in 1972, more than a decade later. I’ve little doubt that the Queen knew very little about the details either.
I’m not surprised of the reaction to the Queen’s passing. I’m surprised by the positive reaction to Charles. For decades it seemed like he was The Man Who Shouldn’t Be King. Now he his and everyone appears to be fine with it (except of course, those who are against the idea of an hereditary monarchy in general.)
I thought we’d discounted his viewpoint as being insufficiently well-grounded in constitutional legal theory and self-interested to boot?
The word conventions with respect to the British constitution does not mean what it normally means. Conventions are fundamental to the unwritten constitution. It’s a mad system, I grant you.
Would you believe that I did not learn about this for the first time this week? Wait till you find out about Biafra.
That would be one way. Another would be to convince you that the queen’s speaking out would not have stopped the atrocities, may have worsened them and may have led to a British state more adept at committing and covering up crimes against humanity. I’ve made those arguments up thread. If they haven’t convinced you then you are just going to have to continue being wrong. 
The Kenyan concentration camps were incredibly fucking awful. So was the overthrow of Mossadegh. So was Biafra. So was Bloody Sunday. So was the shit the Australian SAS (and likely the British) were getting up to in Afghanistan. The Queen was the figurehead for all of these things and the stain attaches to her. But it is still ahistorical to suggest that she could have done anything about it, or that if she’d tried it wouldn’t have run a severe risk of making things worse, not in constitutional terms but in atrocities terms.
Who’s this “we,” buddy? I discounted him, you asked, incredulously,
I was just pointing out that the guy you were citing as having a “good enough” analysis seems to disagree with you.
We’ve got atrocities so bad that the government spent years covering them up while they happened, atrocities they committed soon after the British public forced the Empire to remove itself from India based largely on activists who brought their atrocities in India to light. You’ve done absolutely nothing to convince me that if the Queen had brought Britain’s atrocities in Kenya to light, things would have gone differently.
I know. At this point, particularly as you are one of my favourite posters on here, I think it’s best if I stop trying.
I’m sorry if this has been aggravating. I do basically agree with you about the moral point. I’d like to think you were right, I’m just incredibly cynical about the British Establishment in much the same way that mice are incredibly cynical about cats.
Back on the actual thread topic for a change, some absolutely magnificent shithousing from Celtic fans at the Shaktar-Donetsk vs Celtic match tonight.
Two bits of background. Of the two Glasgow teams, Rangers are team Protestant, Celtic team Catholic. But this has metastasized. Rangers are also Team Monarchist, so Celtic must be team anti-Monarchist. Some of this is genuine, some of it is rivalry gone insane.
Michael Fagan was a labourer who at a low point in his life and mental health broke into Buckingham Palace twice. On the second occasion, he got into the Queen’s bedroom and they had a little chat before security belatedly got their arse in gear and he was quietly removed. No one knows what was said between the two and Celtic fans among others have used this to gleefully imply a treasonous liaison.
So the first banner unfurled by the Celtic fans read: Fuck the Crown.
Bit route one, lads, no finesse, must try harder.
Second banner: Sorry for your loss Michael Fagan.
10/10, no notes
As a person of Indian origin, (I share this feeling with other friends too)
Would you mind expounding on this a tad?
I never thought her a horrific dolt, but she never impressed me as a humanitarian genius either.
Basically always impressed me as a very average person in all respects - except that she was WORLDCLASS in presenting an unobjectionable public image. Dressed up unobjectionably, smiled or liked grave as the situation called for, waved and expressed banal pleasantries. Basically struck me as out of touch in the way many folk are who have lived privileged lives, and rubbed shoulders w/ middle/lower class folk mainly as photo ops. And even tho I’ve seen reports of her appearing “down-to-earth” while at Balmoral or with her horses, well, I suggest it is easier to appear gracious when you have a full support staff, and folk generally are hesitant to tell you to “fuck off.”
What specifically did she do that impressed you as showing her intelligence and caring nature? And I’m talking about ACTIONS rather than scripted remarks. And it is less impressive to appear supportive of charities and such when doing so is part of the job for which you are paid lavishly.
In fact, the whole royal family has always just impressed me as pretty average individuals across the board, tho they do dress up well. Not saying US - or Brit - elections are all that great in ensuring the cream rises to the top, either, tho. But at least an elected moron can get voted out - or faces term limits.
I appreciate your kind words, and I apologize for my irritability. As I said, this isn’t exactly an important issue to me, and I just got involved because of the media saturation getting on my nerves. It also didn’t help that I was stuck at home for two days with a nasty cold that I thought might be COVID, and spent more time online that I should’ve.
I think we’re like 95% in agreement, and even though I remain unconvinced about that last 5%, I do appreciate your teaching me things about the monarchy that I didn’t know before.
I said I “believe” QEII was intelligent and caring. I didn’t say she was a genius and/or a super-humanitarian. The Queen never gave interviews, so I base my assessment on what I’ve read about her over many years and snippets of conversations I’ve heard her engaged in. She is well-spoken and has humor (which is somewhat related to intelligence). We never chatted, so I don’t know much beyond that.
Since the Queen never gave interviews we don’t know how intelligent she really was. I don’t believe she was a dolt, or super-intelligent. After 70 years on the throne, either of those extremes would have been noted. Elizabeth I, not II was the Royal brainiac.
QEII, along with her sister, were home schooled by prominent teachers (including the provost of Eton College). Besides English and a smattering of other languages she was fluent in French (and maybe German, I’ve read conflicting accounts). The speeches she gave in French were well regarded by at least one linguist whose account I read, who wrote that Elizabeth had a fine command of the french language and didn’t just mouth the words).
Winston Churchill discussed his first meeting with the young Princess Elizabeth. He said he didn’t expect her to contribute much of value during the meeting, but came away impressed by her knowledge. She’s met regularly with every PM since Churchill (a duty she or they were not required to do). I don’t believe over 70 years of meetings, the PMs would agree to meet weekly with the Queen if she didn’t have something intelligent to say.
As far as “caring”, I base that mainly on her obvious love of animals (at least dogs and horses). In my experience, animal lovers are caring people. I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like animals.
The eye contact and facial expressions she made with people appear warm and genuine (hard to fake for 70 years). She never to my knowledge ever gave anyone a wedgie.
I’m not a Queen Elizabeth fanatic or expert, but she strikes (struck) me as intelligent and caring.
Thx for the explanation. I don’t think she necessarily is the monster some her suggest, tho I have major issues w/ her family business. I guess I should learn to stop being surprised at peoples’ affection for celebrities.
