• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Elizabeth II has died

Politesse said:
Oleg said:
The British Empire did more to free and modernize the World than any political entity before or since. It’s not popular history, but the Brits used the force of their Empire to end slavery. Can’t think of any other empire which chose to risk treasure and lives to help outgroups.
Click to expand...

No, that is definitely not popular history. On this we agree. It is most certainly popular, and very much the way history is taught to young Brits.

But it is not history. It's nonsensical, imperialistic pageantry unsupportable by any examination of the actual historical record. You can't look at the whole broad span of imperial history and acknowledge only one moment in that span of history as indicative of the entire legacy. Britain vigorously participated in the slave trade for a very long period of time before abolition, and the money generated by that period of exploitation remains a portion of the royal family's wealth and corresponding influence.
Click to expand...
Apparently, now subjugating large parts of the world, inflicting violence upon the native populations, and forcing them to accept and adopt British culture (while at the same time being utterly subservient to the invaders) is how you "free" people. And of course, "modernize" which is totally not a euphemism for "violently suppress the black, brown, and yellow people under your boot."

Yes, friends, colonialism was just the British Empire raining gifts of "civilization" down upon the "savages!" Once they buried their dead and cleaned up the remnants of their countries, they happily enjoyed being second class citizens and serving their masters! It's way much better than slavery! And all the British charged for this generous "service" was the appropriation of all the natural resources and wealth of the countries they subjugated! Plus if you were really lucky, they'd conscript you into the British military so you can subjugate other people! It's a win-win!
 
steve_bank said:
I woder how North Ireland and Scotalnd and Wales think about King Chuck being called their leader and head of state..
Click to expand...
Can't see why the Scots would object. King Chuck gets to be King because he's the descendant of Scotland's James VI -- he was the guy who who inherited England the last time Queen Elizabeth died.
 
lpetrich said:
Australia almost became a republic in 1999.  1999 Australian republic referendum
The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a two-question referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament following a bi-partisan appointment model which had been approved by a half-elected, half-appointed Constitutional Convention held in Canberra in February 1998. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important politically, asked whether Australia should alter the Constitution to insert a preamble. For some years opinion polls had suggested that a majority of the electorate favoured a republic.[3] Nonetheless, the republic referendum was defeated, partly due to division among republicans on the method proposed for selection of the president and dissident republicans opposed the president to have strong executive power.
Click to expand...
The article listed these positions, though with a "citation needed" warning:
  • Traditional monarchists - manly older and more rural
  • Pragmatic monarchists - like a monarch as a nonpartisan "umpire"
  • Minimal change republicans - parliamentary republic, with President appointed by 2/3 of Parliament
  • Progressive republicans - popularly-elected President
  • Radical republicans - want a presidential or semi-presidential system
  • Tactical voters - on both sides, voting against their inclinations to try to prevent more radical changes
  • The uncommitted
Click to expand...
See, that's the proper way to run a referendum: you air your disagreements before putting the question to the public so that everyone knows that you've got no fucking idea what you'll do if you win, and therefore they all vote to remain.
 
Derec said:
DrZoidberg said:
Well... Uju Anya is not wrong. The British empire caused untold suffering.
Click to expand...
Of course she is wrong. Your opinions about the British Empire aside (not the topic of this thread anyway) QE2 reigned from 1952, when the British Empire already ended for all intents and purposes. And of course, her role in purely ceremonial. She, nor her more recent predecessors, have had no meaningful role in running the country.
Click to expand...
Make up your mind. Either she represents the British empire or she doesn't. You can't have it both ways
 
Derec said:
DrZoidberg said:
Well... Uju Anya is not wrong. The British empire caused untold suffering.
Click to expand...
Of course she is wrong. Your opinions about the British Empire aside (not the topic of this thread anyway) QE2 reigned from 1952, when the British Empire already ended for all intents and purposes. And of course, her role in purely ceremonial. She, nor her more recent predecessors, have had no meaningful role in running the country.
Click to expand...
Yep. Blaming the Queen for Britain's past misdeeds is like blaming Obama for the Vietnam War. I can't imagine anyone suggesting Obama die a miserable, torturous death on account of the US's past misdeeds in S.E. Asia (without catching a lot of heat, anyway).
 
So as an aside here,

Most people are mostly right most of the time.

Therefore...

Few people are mostly wrong most of the time.

Most people are a little wrong most of the time.

Most people are mostly wrong a little of the time.

Seeing as we have one poster claiming people on the left (the majority) is mostly wrong most of the time, I can say quite confidently that poster is explained by one of the two bolded statements.
 
Bomb#20 said:
steve_bank said:
I woder how North Ireland and Scotalnd and Wales think about King Chuck being called their leader and head of state..
Click to expand...
Can't see why the Scots would object. King Chuck gets to be King because he's the descendant of Scotland's James VI -- he was the guy who who inherited England the last time Queen Elizabeth died.
Click to expand...
James VI and I was the first English monarch from the House of Stuart. There were eight more Stuart monarchs after him. The connection of the English monarchy to the Stuarts ended with the death of Queen Anne in 1714. Her only son died in 1700, so thanks to a combination of the rules of succession and inbreeding among monarchs and aristocrats the crown fell into German hands, specifically the House of Hanover. Beginning with George I, who was Anne's second cousin, it has remained in German hands ever since. At the time of his accession to the British throne spoke no English, and his ministers spoke no German. They had to communicate with each other in French. His grandson, George III, was the first Hanoverian ruler who spoke English as a mother tongue. George V decided to officially change the name from Hanover (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, if you want to be pedantic) to Windsor in 1917 because things German were a bit on the nose at the time. George V was Lizzie's grandfather.
 
Oleg said:
Gospel said:
Oleg said:
Politesse said:
No, she was the figurehead for a monstrous empire.
Click to expand...
The British Empire did more to free and modernize the World than any political entity before or since. It’s not popular history, but the Brits used the force of their Empire to end slavery. Can’t think of any other empire which chose to risk treasure and lives to help outgroups.
Click to expand...
Great, I'll gladly blast you in the face with my fist then hand you an icepack. We cool?
Click to expand...
If not for the British Empire, slavery would still be widespread throughout the world. No one else cared to stop it.
Click to expand...
The British had their hands cupped with Portugal happily strolling down their economical streets until black and white people in the good ole USA said "bruh no".
 
Hermit said:
Bomb#20 said:
Can't see why the Scots would object. King Chuck gets to be King because he's the descendant of Scotland's James VI -- he was the guy who who inherited England the last time Queen Elizabeth died.
Click to expand...
James VI and I was the first English monarch from the House of Stuart. There were eight more Stuart monarchs after him. The connection of the English monarchy to the Stuarts ended with the death of Queen Anne in 1714.
Click to expand...
It didn't, though -- Charles is a quasi-Stuart monarch.

Her only son died in 1700, so thanks to a combination of the rules of succession and inbreeding among monarchs and aristocrats the crown fell into German hands, specifically the House of Hanover. Beginning with George I, who was Anne's second cousin,
Click to expand...
Bingo. They were second cousins because James VI and I was their great-grandfather. It's kind of twisted to argue that the Hanover family aren't connected to the Stuarts -- if female descent doesn't count, well, the only reason the Stuart family ever got Scotland in the first place is because one of them married Robert the Bruce's daughter.
 
So just thinking about the announcement. She died peacefully? WTF? How do you die peacefully? She wasn’t assassinated. Duh! Was she writhing in pain screaming? Probably not. But we’d never know that.

On another note what did she die of?

247BA085-ED11-44D4-9850-7F79EDE44ADD.jpeg

The discoloration on her hand is a big clue. It’s an obvious sign of peripheral vascular disease.
 
However, QE2 was dressed in ordinary clothing and on her feet without much outward assistance. So I'm a bit surprised that she died so quickly.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Hermit said:
Bomb#20 said:
Can't see why the Scots would object. King Chuck gets to be King because he's the descendant of Scotland's James VI -- he was the guy who who inherited England the last time Queen Elizabeth died.
Click to expand...
James VI and I was the first English monarch from the House of Stuart. There were eight more Stuart monarchs after him. The connection of the English monarchy to the Stuarts ended with the death of Queen Anne in 1714.
Click to expand...
It didn't, though -- Charles is a quasi-Stuart monarch.

Her only son died in 1700, so thanks to a combination of the rules of succession and inbreeding among monarchs and aristocrats the crown fell into German hands, specifically the House of Hanover. Beginning with George I, who was Anne's second cousin,
Click to expand...
Bingo. They were second cousins because James VI and I was their great-grandfather. It's kind of twisted to argue that the Hanover family aren't connected to the Stuarts -- if female descent doesn't count, well, the only reason the Stuart family ever got Scotland in the first place is because one of them married Robert the Bruce's daughter.
Click to expand...
Sure. That is why George I is better known as a Stuart than a Hanover, I suppose. :hehe:

The link to the Stuarts was further diluted with each succeeding monarch. George I married Sophia Dorothea of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Their son, George II, married Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach. The next king, George III, was the grandson of George II. He married Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, whose son became George IV. When he died his younger brother succeeded him and was in turn followed by the daughter of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn (the fourth son of King George III) and Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Best known simply as Queen Victoria, she married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha...

I know everything is connected with everything and ultimately we are all related to Adam and Eve, but the Stuart bloodline is getting a wee bit thin, don't you agree? It is untenable to regard Charles III as a Stuart on the grounds that one of his ancestors, George I, was a second cousin of Queen Anne when he commenced his reign 308 years earlier. The Stuart dynasty died with her. Long live the Hanover Windsor dynasty.
 
Hermit said:
Sure. That is why George I is better known as a Stuart than a Hanover, I suppose. :hehe:

The link to the Stuarts was further diluted with each succeeding monarch. George I married ...
... Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. ...

I know everything is connected with everything and ultimately we are all related to Adam and Eve, but the Stuart bloodline is getting a wee bit thin, don't you agree? It is untenable to regard Charles III as a Stuart on the grounds that one of his ancestors, George I, was a second cousin of Queen Anne when he commenced his reign 308 years earlier. The Stuart dynasty died with her. Long live the Hanover Windsor dynasty.
Click to expand...
Horsefeathers! If the link with the Stuarts is diluted with each succeeding monarch then Anne was just as little a Stuart as George I. Which is only infinitesimally a Stuart because James VI and I's bloodline was already a wee bit thin since it was already diluted up the wazoo by all those Stewart monarchs since Robert II -- they're all a long long way from Walter Stewart, High Steward of Scotland. The only reason to regard Anne Stuart as any more Stuarty than George I is that we bestow fathers' instead of mothers' family names on children -- and if we're going by that rule, it is untenable to regard Charles III as a Windsor. The wonderful thing about arbitrary conventions is they let us prove whatever we please. :)

LongShort live the Mountbatten dynasty -- may the British soon abandon this silliness and join the modern world. :devil:
 
SLD said:
So just thinking about the announcement. She died peacefully? WTF? How do you die peacefully? She wasn’t assassinated. Duh! Was she writhing in pain screaming? Probably not. But we’d never know that.

On another note what did she die of?

View attachment 40217

The discoloration on her hand is a big clue. It’s an obvious sign of peripheral vascular disease.
Click to expand...
She was 96 years old.

Sudden death of a 96 year old woman is not unusual, surprising, or shocking; A Coronial Inquest isn't needed, and an Internet Inquest is particularly futile (but almost certainly inevitable).

In B4 "she was quietly assassinated by shadowy figures for shadowy reasons that definitely mean Q-anon is 100% right about absolutely everything".
 
bilby said:
SLD said:
So just thinking about the announcement. She died peacefully? WTF? How do you die peacefully? She wasn’t assassinated. Duh! Was she writhing in pain screaming? Probably not. But we’d never know that.

On another note what did she die of?

View attachment 40217

The discoloration on her hand is a big clue. It’s an obvious sign of peripheral vascular disease.
Click to expand...
She was 96 years old.

Sudden death of a 96 year old woman is not unusual, surprising, or shocking; A Coronial Inquest isn't needed, and an Internet Inquest is particularly futile (but almost certainly inevitable).

In B4 "she was quietly assassinated by shadowy figures for shadowy reasons that definitely mean Q-anon is 100% right about absolutely everything".
Click to expand...
Here’s the real story:

www.theonion.com

Report: Queen Elizabeth Shot Herself In Bunker As Enemy Forces Closed In

BALLATER, SCOTLAND—Ruling her official cause of death as suicide, sources confirmed Friday that Queen Elizabeth II shot herself in her bunker with her service pistol as enemy forces closed in. “Rather than surrender, Queen Elizabeth died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head,” said...
www.theonion.com www.theonion.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom