Yeah!Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of England has died.
As an American, I can't say that I fully understand the emotional significance of royalty, but I can respect it as a historically and culturally significant institution that provided a sense of identity, culture, tradition, and happiness for lots of people.Yeah!
Eli2 has left the chat.
Too much time being one of the most representative characters of that hideous, pathetic, outdated and revolting entity which is the mafia called Royalty.
Folklorists are going to mourn her passing now but from an ethical point of view it is a total WIN WIN.
Just heard myself. Feeling unexpectedly sad.Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of England has died.
Very well put. <3As an American, I can't say that I fully understand the emotional significance of royalty, but I can respect it as a historically and culturally significant institution that provided a sense of identity, culture, tradition, and happiness for lots of people.
As an American you should relate easier as your culture has had lots of personifications of what moral misery is.As an American, I can't say that I fully understand the emotional significance of royalty, but I can respect it as a historically and culturally significant institution that provided a sense of identity, culture, tradition, and happiness for lots of people.
Going way back into history, or maybe not at all, not sure. Being an Irish born American, truthfully was not too concerned about Kings, Queens, or what the hell they are. Eventually my interests were raised in the Royal Mafia. The English Royalty, they are well hidden rich people with the audacity to take from the poor and keep the wealth among their own. So what does it matter if it's one of the oldest surviving Royalties in the world. They raped countries, killed people only for control, then left it all in a wasteland. It's one of those, look at us, we are untouchable. It's time for this Royal circus to load up the clowns and disappear. Now England gets a new Queen, what's his name?As an American you should relate easier as your culture has had lots of personifications of what moral misery is.
Royalty is a middle age institution heritage financially supported by everyone's taxes, often involved in corruption scandals, proof that laws are not equal for everybody, perpetuating the unfair differences between social classes just for the sake of having born in one or other family.
Queen Elizabeth was openly in favor of the Nazi regime until her media assistants told her it wasn't positive for her public image to admit it. Just to mention one of the many dark and hideous chapters in Her Majesty's career. If you can assume that and consider it ok just because you enjoy living in a world where there still being kings, queens, princes and all that folkloric characters (sorry, no dragons), just support it yourself with your hard earned taxes and negotiate with it with your obviously absent sense of moral and historical knowledge.
View attachment 51583
I can think about three really miserable institutions in the world. One of them is royalty. Young "modern" minded people tend to show indignation about the castes system in India and the injustices women have to face all around the world just for having been born as a female, then they support this heinous concept of royalty. Why? Just because of its superficial folkloric connotations? Then you've bitten the hook because that's the only reason they give to justify their existence opening a wider gap between social classes, leeching public wealth, acting like true mobsters and perpetuating an ignominy that in the case of the British crown has meant a comprehensive dismantling of cultures as the Nigerian, Australian, Indian, Irish... and the list goes on with endless genocides and crimes against humanity.Going way back into history, or maybe not at all, not sure. Being an Irish born American, truthfully was not too concerned about Kings, Queens, or what the hell they are. Eventually my interests were raised in the Royal Mafia. The English Royalty, they are well hidden rich people with the audacity to take from the poor and keep the wealth among their own. So what does it matter if it's one of the oldest surviving Royalties in the world. They raped countries, killed people only for control, then left it all in a wasteland. It's one of those, look at us, we are untouchable. It's time for this Royal circus to load up the clowns and disappear. Now England gets a new Queen, what's his name?
I believe that there are two words to describe the English royalty.I can think about three really miserable institutions in the world. One of them is royalty. Young "modern" minded people tend to show indignation about the castes system in India and the injustices women have to face all around the world just for having been born as a female, then they support this heinous concept of royalty. Why? Just because of its superficial folkloric connotations? Then you've bitten the hook because that's the only reason they give to justify their existence opening a wider gap between social classes, leeching public wealth, acting like true mobsters and perpetuating an ignominy that in the case of the British crown has meant a comprehensive dismantling of cultures as the Nigerian, Australian, Indian, Irish... and the list goes on with endless genocides and crimes against humanity.
While you bend to kiss their feet to have the childish illusion of belonging to their part just for doing so, they are squeezing until the last drop of profits from the society and the community you belong to.
Human stupidity is endless and thanks to a majority lack of brains we all pay a very high price.
My only trace of sorrow about Lizzy's passing is that gunpowder hasn't been involved but aging instead.
View attachment 51585
There's a concept for those who seem blindfolded by kings and queens fairytales to visualize capitalism more clearly:I believe that there are two words to describe the English royalty.
Those two words: Gorilla capitalism.
I'm not sure I follow. But what I can tell you though, is that American ancestral origin story was about fighting off the shackles of the monarchy.As an American you should relate easier as your culture has had lots of personifications of what moral misery is.
Stability in leadership is tremendously valuable. Queen Elizabeth II delivered on that front for 70 years. Think about it, she weathered through a lot of historic events, basically the transformation of the world after WW2. She oversaw the dismantling of the British empire. I don't know about you but that's some serious devotion to a life of service and duty. Gotta respect it.Royalty is a middle age institution heritage financially supported by everyone's taxes, often involved in corruption scandals, proof that laws are not equal for everybody, perpetuating the unfair differences between social classes just for the sake of having born in one or other family.
It shouldn't be surprising that a woman born in the 1920s has the sensibilities of a person born in the 1920s. I also think context is very important here. The picture of Elizabeth II throwing up Nazi salute signs (as an impressionable child no less) was taken in 1933, years before Hitler and the Nazis committed those atrocities. In 1933, Hitler was seen as a figure that saved Germany when they were suffering post WW1 and led Germany to rise in power, years before he would commit mass genocides and lead Europe into a devastating and deadly war. If this picture was say, taken during or after the war, then it would be a much bigger deal. And let's also not skip over the fact that Queen Elizabeth served in the British army, during WW2, you know, against Hitler.Queen Elizabeth was openly in favor of the Nazi regime until her media assistants told her it wasn't positive for her public image to admit it. Just to mention one of the many dark and hideous chapters in Her Majesty's career. If you can assume that and consider it ok just because you enjoy living in a world where there still being kings, queens, princes and all that folkloric characters (sorry, no dragons), just support it yourself with your hard earned taxes and negotiate with it with your obviously absent sense of moral and historical knowledge.
This weird malice people have for her seems shallow at best. But you know how it is today, in an age of hot takes and instant gratification, being nuanced has become a lost art and shamed even. It takes a backseat to everything.I see a lot of posts online shaming her. This should've been more known to the public (me) beforehand. Let her rest lol.
Not that it changes anything.
Do you think the Queen's passing will have any political implication on Scotland's push for independence now?Meanwhile most normal people are struggling to pay their bills. This doesn't sit right with me at all. I think the royals are outdated and should be done away with, but I'm not happy to hear that she died. To be fair though, 96 is a good age.
An american ancestral origin you, and most USA citizens don't belong to.I'm not sure I follow. But what I can tell you though, is that American ancestral origin story was about fighting off the shackles of the monarchy.
In which active way has Elizabeth II delivered such an stability? Inaugurating sculptures and monuments? Sorry but I don't think cutting red ribbons with a pair of scissors is that difficult. What else? Posing for pictures? Giving pins to a queue of people she literally ignored who were most of them? A really curious way of delivering stability.Stability in leadership is tremendously valuable. Queen Elizabeth II delivered on that front for 70 years. Think about it, she weathered through a lot of historic events, basically the transformation of the world after WW2. She oversaw the dismantling of the British empire. I don't know about you but that's some serious devotion to a life of service and duty. Gotta respect it.
The British Monarchy which of course has seen centuries of bloodshed, should be criticized, but to level all this at the Queen is a bit over the top and unfair IMO.
Cookie crumbs to justify her status. Do you know British crown is one of the wealthiest ones in western culture? She had to justify her status somehow and she did it by literally giving alms to the poor. That's how rich people operate, they clean and justify their image by basically doing what you're supposed to do when you are revoltingly rich.She's associated with over 600 charities in Britain and has helped raise almost $2 billion for these non-profits. The queen made it a special focus of her life to help reduce poverty.
No, I don't think many people (bar some rangers fans and those who have served in the forces) see the royal family as anything to do with Scotland. It's Elizabeth ll, Queen of England.Do you think the Queen's passing will have any political implication on Scotland's push for independence now?
Sure the witch complained.
I still don't get what it is you're trying to say here. But you can just skip all that fluff and just say you hate everything the US stands for. Don't worry, I won't get offended. But @Wrfortiscue might, so you better watch out.An american ancestral origin you, and most USA citizens don't belong to.
In which active way has Elizabeth II delivered such an stability?
Through good leadership qualities, it resulted in 70 years of functioning society. That's what stability looks like and it's valuable. Not to you apparently, but for many, it is.When you're a queen or a king that "serious devotion", besides being unavoidable, is reaaally well paid, so we are not talking about a self sacrificing missionary who has lived with lepers just getting some food in return. And again, describe service and duty. Anyone can pose, sign documents and cut red ribbons, especially when you're being payed millions and living like a demigod
I'm detecting a lot of edgelord energy here. I thought I had the world figured out too when I was an arrogant teenager, but overtime you'll come to realize the simplistic ways of your thinking.And yes, as anyone else being 96 year old, she has been in the world while many historical events took place, and?
You must be one of those "silence is violence" folks we have wandering about in our current political landscape. It should be noted that the Queen had traditional values that she stuck with till the end, that meant no political and public discourse about controversial subjects. I mean, didn't she also remain silent after Diana's death too? You want to talk about consistency... well there it is.For the record: Queen Elizabeth II never did condemn Nazi atrocities in public. Never pronounced herself in her life regarding such events. Never.
Are you even British or at least part of the Commonwealth? I find it silly how you want to preach down on them especially regarding their identities and culture. And besides, last I recalled, England tried to do the whole republic thing in 1649, but that didn't turn out too good, did it? I guess something must be working for them, to continue to remain as a constitutional monarchy... go figure.Again, if you support royalty, at least be conscious of what it really is and means, don't be ashamed, look at yourself in the mirror and feel empowered, get rid of your complexes and admit you support a senseless chunk of folklore just for the sake of it. A chunk of folklore which not only doesn't benefit society but profoundly harms it. Overcome your identity crisis and admit it. I know it's not easy to recognize one is an old fashioned conservative in a world in urgent need of progression, but... it is what it is.
There's no need to be insulting, especially @Steph1710 of all people. Chill.See? I can also help you with words, mate.
I was thinking along the lines of... if King Charles proves to be unpopular, then that would be the final irritation to push you guys towards independence. But I see your point.No, I don't think many people (bar some rangers fans and those who have served in the forces) see the royal family as anything to do with Scotland. It's Elizabeth ll, Queen of England.
I was not impressed when she spoke out just before the referendum vote saying it would be a shame if the nations were split up. Royals are not supposed to get involved with political matters. It was almost as bad as 'the vow'.
I just don't think many people up here really care much about it. I get the historical significance of figures like the Queen, but a lot of the monarchy's history isn't great. It's like walking about Glasgow - beautiful, ornate, expensive buildings that have so much cultural significance - but a high number were funded by slavery.I was thinking along the lines of... if King Charles proves to be unpopular, then that would be the final irritation to push you guys towards independence. But I see your point.
NO, YOU'RE FLAGRANTLY WRONG.Trough good leadership qualities, it resulted in 70 years of functioning society. That's what stability looks like and it's valuable. Not to you apparently, but for many, it is.
This is obviously true too, but remember a functioning society needs to be preceded by legitimacy first and foremost, meaning there first needs to be popular acceptance of government or systems of governance. If the people don't accept their government, then there can't be order and stability for society.A functioning society results from THE WORKERS, not from a social parasite.
Sorry, but this is an appeal to emotion. If you're going to commit this fallacy, could you at least go more in depth. I feel like you're not giving me the full picture here. Like how exactly does the royal family make their money? What does paying the royals cost the taxpayers (out of pocket) each year? How does the majority of the population feel about this? Does the monarch also pay taxes? I don't want to do your research, but I have a feeling, if I look this up, it's gonna make matters even more worse for you.I suppose you are ok with everyone having to pay their hard earned taxes for a family of leechers to exist, just for the sake of folklore but mate, trust me, being objective, that's a very, very sad position. May the RAT that has just died had donated half her wealth for tinnitus research we may be closer to a solution. Just to picture a very simplistic example.
Jesus christ bro, you are just making me respect the Queen more and more. Please stop!the queen voluntarily paid income tax and capital gains tax since 1992; any income received from the Duchy of Lancaster that doesn't go to official expenses was taxed as well. She was subject to Value Added Tax and also voluntarily paid local taxes.
Smart move honestly. But in the end:And well, mate, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your essay. I lack the motivation.