An Act of Parliament removing the Queen from the throne would have effect no matter if she was in the UK or France or the Antarctic.
And are you really saying that the Queen should only have been arguing for a sort of “oppression-lite” version of colonialism that allowed the UK to hold on to the Empire? I thought support for the Empire was the immoral choice? There wasn’t an option for an Empire that didn’t invovle repressing independence movements, so bowing to the Queen’s pressure could only result in accelerating the loss of Empire. There is no way it would have been seen as anything else.
The Queen was the figurehead of a violently oppressive Empire. You don’t have to construct some ahistorical alternative of her kicking off a constitutional crisis in order to judge her for it. It’s just bad!
This is quite an appeal to emotion but isn’t relevant to the conversation we’re having. If she acts in an unconstitutional fashion, she’s on her way out the door.
Again, I’m going to have to ask you if you think a country’s system of governance matters at all and if the entire thing should be overthrown to change a governmental policy. I mean, in some cases countries literally have to be conquered, but is that a thing you take lightly?
Should the United States have been overthrown during the occupation of the Philippines? During the bombing of Cambodia? If you say yes, fair enough. But make no mistake that that’s what you’re asking. The monarch can’t interfere with policy; it’s unconstitutional. It’s as unconstitutional as Donald Trump trying to overthrow the 2020 election.
I wonder if the concept of “King” or “Queen” throws people off here? In movies and whatnot, kings and queens are overlords, unquestioned masters of all government actions. Works well in fiction but it’s just now how the UK functions.
I’m not saying Elizabeth II doesn’t bear some moral responsibility here; if you go for the ride, you accept what goes with that. Just dumping the entire constitutional monarchy would likely have made the world a worse place, however.
Sounds like a win-win for those who are opposed to the very idea of a hereditary monarchy. What’s the downside? She either speaks out against atrocities within the empire and at least does something to earn her status, or the nation is that much closer to disposing of the monarchy as untenable.
I’m actually really curious what E2 being forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son might have looked like. Do they lock her away in the tower so she can’t poison him with her radical anti-concentration camp views?
Not it’s fuckin not. This torture/beating/starvation is exactly what she was countenancing being done in her name. It’s exactly the point.
Exactly. Say she speaks out against atrocities: “These things are being done in my name, and they must not be, because I oppose these acts with every fibre of my being,” she says, loudly and often. Say she’s deposed. Then what? Do the press suddenly ignore her? Or do the royal-crazed British (and American and other) press continue to give her attention, as she remakes herself as the Queen deposed for human rights advocacy?
Losing her palace in order to speak out on behalf of the victims of the British Empire would arguably make her an even more effective spokesperson: look what she gave up, and think how important it must be to her!
The idea that a queen speaking on behalf of human rights and against concentration camps would have strengthened the hand of Churchill et al is both ludicrous and the harshest possible condemnation of the British people.
Perhaps the Royals should have spoken out more about bad things the UK did over the years, but your solution to atrocious acts appears tantamount to a judge pointing to a murderer’s mother during her son’s sentencing and saying, “I sentence your son to community service and a fine. I sentence you to death by electrocution.”
Petey and Bess and the Bulldog have different power. Pete’s the only one with webslingers. The Bulldog’s the only one who can appoint cabinet members. And Bess is the only one who has one of the world’s largest bully pulpits and can speak out against things done in her name and by extension the name of the British people. Just because she lacks literal superpowers, or literal governmental powers, by no means indicates that she’s meaningless.
Sorry, Sanvito had just suggested Parliament could get rid of her because of what they’d done to James II a few centuries prior. I’d looked him up to refresh my memory, and one of the ways they got rid of him was by citing his flight to France.
The order of events you seem to propose is this:
The queen says, “There are horrors being done in my name, horrors so great that I am bound by my conscience, my god, and my love of country to break tradition and speak up against them. These horrors must stop.”
Parliament says, “Welp, that’s it for the queen!” and kicks her out.
The imperialist concentration-camp-runners emerge stronger from the exchange?
If I’m missing something, please let me know. Because that order of events is what sounds like fantasy to me. Much likelier is:
Parliament goes into an uproar and spends shitloads of time yelling at each other over whether the queen is literally Jesus or literally Satan.
Meanwhile, some segment of the British people recall their proud abolitionist heritage and say, “You’re right, mum, this must stop.”
Parliament may or may not force her out in the end, but during the process a movement against concentration camps is strengthened, and the imperialists have a much harder time engaging in their murder/torture/starvation regimen.
No, it’s accurate and easily understood. Punish those actually responsible for committing atrocities (i.e. not the Queen). Criticize, but don’t punish the innocent bystanders who may not have done enough to condemn the crime.
So in your analogy, when you suggest I’m calling for “death by electrocution” for the dead queen, that’s equivalent to my saying she could’ve acted? When you say “criticize but don’t punish the innocent bystanders,” what the fuck counts as “punish” in what I said, and how is she an “innocent bystander” (again, with the proviso that if she really couldn’t have known about the concentration camps, I’ve already said that changes my view considerably)? Because “criticize the [person] who may not have done enough to condemn the crime” is exactly what I’m doing.
Stupid fuckin analogy, and it’s stupid for you to double down on it.
There is something we just don’t know here though isn’t there?
We don’t actually know to what extent she knew about atrocities, nor to what extent she spoke out in private (to those who did have the power to act), nor what sort of calculation (if any) was made by her along the lines of… better to retain influence on the powerful and act in private versus speak out publicly and be certain of being booted out.
Without full knowledge of that it is hard to know how her potential action/inaction is to be fairly judged.
I’m unwilling to fantasize about her speaking out in private, or engaging in secret ninja missions to rescue concentration camp prisoners, or funding a global network of spies to assassinate the worst colonialist leaders. If there’s any evidence whatsoever that she took action, please offer it; otherwise, I’ll base my opinion of her on the public record, as I do for all historical figures.
But she doesn’t have one of the world’s largest bully pulpits! The reason we know this is that it’s not a pulpit that’s been used to do any bullying. Nobody looks to the UK Head of State for moral guidance!
In the real world, Prince Charles (as he then was) used to write letters to cabinet ministers complaining about the architectural choices in government buildings and it was widely agreed that this degree of interference in the running of the government called in to question his fitness to be King. In his first ever speech as King he has essentially promised to cut that shit out and everybody is very happy with this because there was genuine worry that he would imperil the monarchy if he kept it up.
The idea that in the 1950s a 20-something woman reigning in the wake of the Abdication Crisis had even the remotest scope to publicly criticise her government, or that doing so wouldn’t have led to the end of her personal reign and possibly the monarchy itself is just completely ahistorical.
I don’t think I ever suggested a Parliamentary Act was the first and immediate response, just the ultimate one. And yes, there would be uproar but it would be much more focused on whether the Queen had any business speaking her mind than on what she said. Because in speaking her mind she has directly threatened the entire constitutional basis of the UK. Which means everyone with a stake in the continued stability of the UK constitution will be against her.
As for point 3. - sometimes the bad guys win. You started out by saying that Britain in the 1950s was a violent Empire. You were right. What do you think that means in practice?
We still haven’t come to terms with what the Empire meant. Most people in Britain today don’t know about the Kenyan concentration camps and if you tell them they refuse to listen on the grounds that you are “talking Britain down”. There are major political and cultural rows about the idea of including a sentence as banal as [something like] “Churchill was a great war leader but believed that black people were inferior to white people” in a public display today. Telling 1950s Britain that they were committing atrocities would absolutely have triggered an enormous backlash against the messenger (yes, even her) that Imperialists could have ridden to victory (insofar as one can ride a backlash).
Again, she was the figurehead for Britain in the days when that meant empire and atrocities. This taints her. But you don’t need to conjure up a West Wing style counterfactual to condemn her for it.
OK, your choice of course but the overwhelming opinion of those who knew her and worked with her was that she wielded what power she had in private and was severely constrained from public political statements. That minimal public record is highly unlikely to give a full and accurate picture.
I might as well complain that the UK secret services do nothing of benefit for the country because I am only willing to judge them on the missions that are public record.
You seem to want the monarchy dismantled (pretty severe punishment) because it did not go far enough to condemn atrocities committed by the government (those with the power to act). The Queen had no power to commit or prevent atrocities. And, had she gone too far in condemning the government, she no doubt would have received severe blow-back from it, as well as a sizable portion of her subjects. Her job is not to taint the reputation of her nation in the eyes of the world. The mother of a murderer can be criticized for calling her murderous son “a good boy with problems”, but it’s understandable that she does so.
Yes, and that’s essentially what I’m saying. You and I disagree on whether she had potential power that she squandered, and fair enough; I think she had a moral obligation to try.
Are other European royals viewed the same as Britain’s? I never get the idea that - say - the Swedish monarch is as ridiculously wealthy as QE2 was. Or that they are essentially venerated as highly.
Always impressed me as much more appropriate for the 21st (not to mention 19th!) century.
Sorry, Chuckie. Your ancestors appropriated a ton of property in centuries past - you’ve enjoyed it long enough. Go off and just be rich instead of filthy.
The only “fantasy” here is your preposterously unrealistic idea of how the Queen “should” have behaved, which as you’ve been told multiple times, is constitutionally impossible. This ridiculous view, along with accusing others of making “stupid” analogies, is unlike you and is unbecoming. Private conversations with the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, in which the Queen may offer views and advice, is an absolutely routine part of how the monarch interacts with the government.
This is a picture of the Queen with one of the famous government “red boxes”, which are used to transport confidential government documents. She was, by all accounts, very well informed on the issues of the day, and undoubtedly had many views that she conveyed in private.
