Queen Elizabeth

[BoSoxGal]

How many days is appropriate for airing negative opinions about public figures? Because I am certainly planning to pop a cork and dance my ass off at the news that Trump has finally had his cardiac event. I was frustrated by laudatory media coverage of the passing of Reagan and I’m quite sure there were many in the UK who celebrated the news of the death of Thatcher, too.

Billions of people on this planet are descended from people who were oppressed and killed by colonization and the UK monarchy is entirely complicit in that history. Those folks have a right to their feelings, too. I’m sure in the middle are plenty of republicans who are just bored to death with the monarchy and wish it would all go away.

Much ado about nothing. That person had a right to free expression and attacking the chip shop was just dumb.

[Big RR]

Does the monarch really "supervise" the government, or is that more of a ceremonial role? Sure, the monarch can dissolve parliament, but in a Constitutional monarchy that would likely not be tolerated by the people (of course, the people of Australia accepted it, but there were some extenuating circumstances). I can understand protesting the policies of any government, but from what I can see, blaming the queen for them is akin to blaming Miss America for the policies of the US.

Again, as I said above, I really don't know what the monarch does, or is supposed to do, but I hardly think that person ha any real role in the governance of the nation/commonwealth.

BSG--

That person had a right to free expression and attacking the chip shop was just dumb.

I agree with both assertions; and the posters cited by Gob have the same rights. But anyone who wants to can call them asses or jerks (and for all I care, they can call the late queen that).

[BoSoxGal]

So in your estimation a monarch of a constitutional monarchy who serves as head of state and represents everything allegedly good about a country gets to rinse their hands of association with anything bad about a country?

That’s one way to think about things, I guess. It’s not the way the Windsors do, or why else have they been grappling with the issue of historical colonization? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... n-slavery/
The monarch of Belgium has formally apologized for colonization of the Congo within the last couple of years. The Pope formally and publicly apologized for the sins of colonization globally in 2015. There have been numerous calls from various quarters for the Windsors to do the same on behalf of former empire of the UK. Charles III acknowledged the stains of history in remarks on a recent visit to Canada but a more official statement has yet to be made.

I honestly thing that formal public acknowledgment of the oppression that went with colonization and apology for it is a small thing for the descendants of the oppressed to request and expect. I mean shit this is basic stuff we all learned in kindergarten, isn’t it? If Charles III wants the monarchy to thrive into the future, he will have to meet the moment and the rising calls for this kind of acknowledgment and contrition.

[Big RR]

Personally, I think monarchs are an anachronism bordering on the irrelevant; if anyone should be apologizing on behalf of the country it should be Parliament or the PM, not the person whose only real job is cutting ribbons opening supermarkets and serving as the figureheads of chartiies run by professionals. I guess one of them could apologize on behalf of their family for their complicity in it, but I don't see the monarch's job being anything that affects the course of how a nation is governed, including apologizing for anything on behalf of the nation. They are not the ruler(s) and, if they are a head of the government to any extent, it is a figurehead.

Now, some of the Brits here may disagree with me, and I am perfectly willing to be educated on what the monarch actually does vis a vis governance, but I think it's very little (or nil, as you might say).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Today I've been contemplating what appears to me to be an anomaly.

The crudest "Trumpish" critics of the Queen heard on the Twatter and radio (good old PBS) are so happy to say that the UK monarchy is outdated, does nothing, is merely a tourist attraction (could be true that), and in short is ineffectual and useless.

The same "rejoicers in the death of a woman" condemn her as a racist tool, wielding immense hurtful power over black and brown people (apparently the yellow, pink and plain old dusky ones don't get a good word), responsible for a thousand years of colonial pillage, and utterly to blame for pretty much everything they don't like.

So, is it useless do-nothings or racist empire builders trampling on the rights of man/woman/it? Make up yer minds or at least fight each other to the death. A sort of suicide that would be, I suppose.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Case in point - that juju Anya thing below....

An abysmal failure in education and immense ignorance of actual you know like history yields a boor. And boors do what boors do - celebrate death.

[Bicycle Bill]

...but from what I can see, blaming the queen for them is akin to blaming Miss America for the policies of the US.

Hear, hear!  Well put.

And to carry that thought a step or two further, we can't really blame Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, MTG, AOC, Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, Joe Biden, or even DJT himself for what's going on right now in this country.   At least here in the good ol' USA, the ultimate control is in the hands of 'We The People', the voters... and if we elect someone like the ones I just listed and refuse to hold them accountable to ourselves — or abdicate our control and input to the political process by refusing to do something as simple as casting our votes — we deserve whatever the hell we end up getting.

-"BB"-

[Bicycle Bill]

The monarch of Belgium has formally apologized for colonization of the Congo within the last couple of years. The Pope formally and publicly apologized for the sins of colonization globally in 2015. There have been numerous calls from various quarters for the Windsors to do the same on behalf of former empire of the UK. Charles III acknowledged the stains of history in remarks on a recent visit to Canada but a more official statement has yet to be made.

I honestly thing that formal public acknowledgment of the oppression that went with colonization and apology for it is a small thing for the descendants of the oppressed to request and expect. I mean shit this is basic stuff we all learned in kindergarten, isn’t it? If Charles III wants the monarchy to thrive into the future, he will have to meet the moment and the rising calls for this kind of acknowledgment and contrition.

But in the long run, it's just words and platitudes — sort of like the ubiquitous "thoughts and prayers" that always make the rounds after a catastrophe or atrocity, and words are cheap.
Unless you're paying a lawyer for them...  

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry!

[MGMcAnick]

"Consort" sounds more like she is part of an illicit relationship. At least that's what it sounds like to me, an AmerEnglish speaking American guy.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Seems about right.

[BoSoxGal]

"Consort" sounds more like she is part of an illicit relationship. At least that's what it sounds like to me, an AmerEnglish speaking American guy.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Seems about right.

You guys are thinking of the verb form of consort, which means to habitually hang about with someone usually to the negative opinion of others - like consorting with the enemy, as our orange ‘friend’ did with all his Russian friends.

The noun form of consort is wife, husband, companion - in particular the spouse of a monarch. Not much used in American English, I’ll grant you.

[Bicycle Bill]

"Consort" sounds more like she is part of an illicit relationship. At least that's what it sounds like to me, an AmerEnglish speaking American guy.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Seems about right.

You guys are thinking of the verb form of consort, which means to habitually hang about with someone usually to the negative opinion of others - like consorting with the enemy, as our orange ‘friend’ did with all his Russian friends.

The noun form of consort is wife, husband, companion - in particular the spouse of a monarch. Not much used in American English, I’ll grant you.

And they're pronounced differently, too.  The noun form has the accent on the first syllable, while the verb form accents the second.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

In the past, it wasn't seen necessary to specify that the wife of a king regnant was a queen consort, because the convention was that a king outranks a queen. It was only the husbands of queens regnant that were called consorts, to emphasize their subordinate status in spite of being men. As such, the styling of Camilla as HM the Queen Consort is actually a move away from the sexist usage of the past, and hopefully it will persist in future generations. It would be even better if in future the husband of a queen regnant could be called a king consort, without any concern that calling him a king means that he outranks her.

[Joe Guy]

Could a gay male King choose the title of Queen?

[MGMcAnick]

You guys are thinking of the verb form of consort, which means to habitually hang about with someone usually to the negative opinion of others - like consorting with the enemy, as our orange ‘friend’ did with all his Russian friends.

The noun form of consort is wife, husband, companion - in particular the spouse of a monarch. Not much used in American English, I’ll grant you.

I'm thinking of both forms. The Queen Consort consorted with the King while he was Prince Charles, and married to Princess Diana. Gives me a bit of a negative opinion of both of them.
So what's your point?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Yes. Interesting that within a few days we Brits have a new PM - Liz Truss - and a new king. Truss was famously part of an adulterous relationship with a fellow Member of Parliament - Mark Field - 20 years ago while both were married. Her marriage survived, his did not. And Chuckie of course was shagging Camilla while married to Diana.

So long as they do not try to persuade me that they are somehow more moral than I am. Family values - bollocks!

[ex-khobar Andy]

A little more info on that

Her candidacy for her Norfolk seat three years [i.e., after the news of her affair broke] later narrowly survived an attempt by traditionalist members of her local Tory association to deselect her following the ordeal.

According to the BBC, she said at the time of the row: “It’s been public for some years now.

“I am really sorry about that (affair). It’s a mistake I made and as far as me and my husband are concerned it’s water under the bridge.”

Three comments on her statement.

1). 'Mistake' used to mean something like 1 + 1 = 3 - having an affair with your work colleague does not, in my book, constitute a 'mistake.'
2). She obviously has a problem with basic English. She is supposedly an Oxford graduate despite her 'deprived education'. Perhaps - and this really is a thing - she wants to appear to be a 'woman of the people' by misusing the language in the way that hoi polloi often do.
3). "Water under the bridge." Now that's a new term for it.

I am not optimistic about PM Truss for many reasons. Being caught shagging her workmate is not one of them.

[Scooter]

[Big RR]

[liberty]

There's always wankers who will use any excuse to air what shits they are.

Enraged Brits pelted eggs at a fish and chip shop after the restaurant's owner posted a video online celebrating the death Queen Elizabeth II.

Jaki Fish and Chip Shop, in Muir of Ord, was targeted after owner Jacki Pickett shared a clip of her popping and spraying champagne shortly after Her Majesty's passing.

Ms Pickett also held up a chalkboard sign reading: 'Lizard Liz Dead and London Bridge has fallen.'

The apparent anti-monarchist's post prompted a large group of residents to gather outside the business in protest as they booed and berrated Ms Pickett.

Police were called to disperse the crowd and were forced to close the shop amid concerns for the owner's safety.

While millions around the world were mourning the death of the 96-year-old monarch, provocateurs were within hours of her death mocking the outpouring of grief - in some of the most esteemed publications in the United States.

One Pennsylvania professor even said she hoped the queen's final hours of pain would 'be excruciating.'

Jeff Bezos was among those condemning her now-deleted tweet.

The ridicule of her reign was led by Tirhakah Love, senior newsletter writer for New York Magazine.

'For 96 years, that colonizer has been sucking up the Earth's resources,' he wrote in his Thursday evening newsletter.

He added: 'You can't be a literal oppressor and not expect the people you've oppressed not to rejoice on news of your death.'

BTW, how does one get to be a "teacher and associate professor at the Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh," and yet be so unintelligent?

What an ignorant bitch. Does she think her people would have done any better if geography and fate had favored them? I don't think so; it was Africans that sold fellow Africans into slavery, not the British that captured them. The idea of the British themselves capturing slaves is stupid; it was just not economically feasible. The money was in transporting slaves, not capturing them. Time was money, and time spent not sailing was money lost.

The British were late to the party and the first to leave; they outlawed slavery in their own country and then went on a crusade to end slavery worldwide. Have the Africans ever done anything like that?

And as for colonialization, sub-Saharan Africans were murdering, enslaving, and building empires long before the British appeared. Is black colonialization acceptable? The British voluntarily gave up the empire; they had the military power to hold on to them if they wanted to be ruthless enough.

This woman is a black racist, and if she doesn't like living among evil white people, why does she not go back to Africa?