Chamberlain on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with the King after Munich agreement. I’d not seen this before.
5 Likes
One of the Burkes
Jords should stick to what he’s immense at. Himself and Tucker talked a lot of gash there. The WASP mindset of the colonizer on full display.
May your Aunt RIP
1 Like
It’s the job of British Governments and British Prime Ministers to apologise for colonial crimes committed.
The Queen has no authority to take it upon her own steam to do so.
It’s at British Governments and British Prime Ministers you should direct your ire.
This all smacks of the pedantic internet view of history where literally anything is desperately searched for to try and discredit an individual according to pre-conceived political or nationalist bias.
Gorbachev died recently. He actually did some genuinely bad things, which are not pedantic to point out. The army he had actual control of killed people in Soviet Republics, mowed them down. Repression continued even if it was loosened. He presided over the cover up about Chernobyl. Yet his contribution to history is widely seen as a positive one overall, and I think correctly so.
Winston Churchill did bad things and it is not pedantic to point that out. He is a complex figure historically. But again, when his contribution to history is measured, he has to come out on the positive side overall because he stood firm against Nazism when the world desperately needed him to do so, and unlike Stalin, who collaborated with the Nazis in the first place, he saw what they were from the get go.
As a ceremonial figurehead, the Queen had none of that real historical import or controversy. She had no power, did her limited duties well and was loved in Britain due to mainly to her longevity. I find it bizarre and quite frankly worrying for the individuals involved that anybody would want to celebrate her death.
You could say the “day we matured as ……”
Quite appropriately, the YouTube algorithm pointed this in my direction today. Hitchens correctly mocked the staged grief acted out by the British public following Diana’s death. We’ll see similar North Korea style mourning over the next few days without a doubt.
1 Like
As the head of state wasn’t she like our president? She has the power to decline any motion put in front of her by pariliament. In theory a safe guard against parliament ?
This role has become more ceremonial but definitely would have had influence on colonial matters in the mau mau rebellion
What absolute nonsense. Of course she could apologise. She mostly chose not to.
Pretending she couldn’t stand up, even a little more, for the millions of people killed and persecuted under her reign is just burying your head in the sand. She chose not to.
Charles must carry his few pound/bank card/viagra tablets in his jacket pocket for his hand is hardly ever out of it. Generally it’s his left hand but he’s liable to be peeling an orange in the other pocket at the same time.
7 Likes
Oh she did. She changed a law that would have made her financial status public knowledge. She also vetted (changed) inheritance tax law. She was well capable of getting political when it affected the financial welfare of her family.
6 Likes
The queen could capture perfectly the zeitgeist of the time in Britain post war, during the troubles, economic hardships, death of Princess Diana right up to the changing world we live in today. She was a motherly figure to a British population and hugely influential. It is disingenuous to suggest that she was a mere figurehead or someone like the head of the GAA. People had her picture up in their living room. When people went to war they did so to honour her, when national team played in Wembly they riled themselves up by singing about her, they had bank holidays for her milestones. At any moment of her chosing she could reign it all in or let it run wild. The old adage that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is when good men do nothing” is apt. There was a lot of evil perpetrated on the people of Derry and Kenya. If they were over exuberant or impestuous they can be forgiven without casting aspersions on them. I wouldnt have done it myself but I havent lived their lives. Maybe it was borne out of realisation that death will humble you no matter your power or wealth.
5 Likes
You’re proving my point. You’re going way out of your way to try and find fault with an individual based on political and nationalist biases that seek to demonise an individual who held a ceremonial position, based on extreme pedantry. It’s the clear your overriding motive is to legitimise the public celebration of that individual’s death. ie. to defend the perpetuation of the hateful shit on this island that we want to move away from.
Martin McGuinness wanted to move away from it and Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill have admirably demonstrated a genuine generosity of spirit with their statements.
Again, given that, there is no excuse for anybody else to indulge their inner meanness of spirit.
I think the pedantry is coming from your willingness to excuse her role in these matters, given your delight in being mean when it suits your political ideology
Fairly breathtaking hypocrisy here given Mick Wallace is currently cheerleading a colonial genocide.
“Her role” was non-existent.
Lads are tremendous at imagining things that suit their miserable political ideologies when it suits.
Go back to targeting Ukrainian refugees and whining about the “feminisation of the west”.
You attack others and then are unable to deal with a riposte without claiming victimhood.
Perhaps forumming is not for you.
1 Like
I generally try and respectfully discuss a topic and will absolutely defend myself when somebody lowers the tone.
You’re lashing out here because you know you’re wrong.