I realise she has just died and it's unbecoming to do anything but laud the person, but this is just moral obsequiousness.
She claims fealty by right of blood, reigned as the crown of an extraordinarily cruel empire, and frequently interceded in the democratic government of Britain to protect her private interests.
I'm sure an account named Emma_Goldman comes by these sentiments honestly, but please don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. We want curious conversation here, not tedious talking-point battle.
You mostly do a pretty good job of avoiding that, for which we're grateful, but on the other hand, (a) we have had to warn you about this before, and (b) this subthread is a classic generic flamewar tangent—just what we want to avoid on HN.
I appreciate the job you do and know it's hard. But I am not quite seeing this. How is
a thread full of panegyrics to the Queen on the front page of HN curious and non-ideological, but me questioning whether - as one of many posters eulogized - that she was a 'moral authority' incurious and ideological?
Maybe it did fan the flames of controversy to question the deification of the Queen, but the deification of the Queen is controversial. I live in Scotland, I know. Surely the right thing is to just ban threads like this in the first place if you don't like ideology.
> reigned as the crown of an extraordinarily cruel empire
What are the empires you're comparing it against? To call it "extraordinary" makes the claim that its level of cruelty is substantially greater than the "ordinary" cruelty of other examples. Were the Russian, Japanese, Ottoman, and other 19th and early 20th century empires substantially less cruel than the British empire?
Not to mention, as other commenters point out Elizabeth was coronated during a period of decolonization, with India departing the empire less than a decade earlier and most of its colonies in Africa and Asia following suit over the next couple decades.
She was a good person, and has my respect but she was also a symbol of a deeply flawed system of governance.
There are lots of notable figures that have died recently (Gorbachev alone may have saved the world as we know it), that don’t get the same, almost pathological level of admiration. It’s not normal to break down crying because a person you never met died at age 97.. that’s hundreds of years of indoctrination, social, and religious manipulation at work.
I would argue, on the opposite, that being unaffected by the passing of significant symbols of our lives/traditions, is the product of modern indoctrination.
Civil unrest is going to happen when you rule for 70 years.
When you say "extraordinarily cruel" then maybe you refer to the 2,100,000 to 3,800,000 Bengals you starved to death
The murder of 13 people (the inciting incident of the troubles) by the British army is not exactly comparable; even taking into consideration the total losses during that time of 3,500~, hardly comparable at all.
The Troubles - was literally a rebellion violently suppressed... for 3 decades.
Let alone all of the Unionists are staunch monarchists and were tightly linked to government institutions.
I wasn't comparing anything to anything. You think that comparing The Troubles to bengal Famine, somehow excuses you from writing an obvious false sentence.
PS: Civil Unrest isn't Civil Unrest, when the army is literally shooting.
I just don’t see it as “extraordinarily cruel” when comparing to other cruelty committed. I see it as quite significantly reduced.
I’m not saying she was perfect, but describing her reign as extraordinarily cruel is a real stretch.
I really don’t want to talk about the troubles but if I’m going to be a dick I will mention that the IRA intentionally targeted civilians, I don’t think the military at that time are as black as they’re painted. It’s all villains I’m afraid.
What the hell are you talking about? This mindset is not remotely "mainstream". I've never once in my life heard anyone talk about Ireland as if it's a place that the UK still owns or feels entitled to.
> The way Ireland was publicly handled after 2016
Do you mean Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is a different country from Ireland, and as far as I'm aware the reason it's still part of the UK is because a solid majority of its citizens want to be part of the UK, not because it's been imposed on them from outside.
I believe he's referring to talk post-Brexit of annexing Ireland to get rid of the problem, rubbish about Ireland becoming part of the UK again to "fix Brexit", and to top it all off, Priti Patel's threats[1] to starve Ireland.
The post-Brexit discourse in the UK regularly featured threats to Irish sovereignty of various kinds, including from prominent Tories, which makes it sufficiently mainstream to matter. I'd recommend you have a read over what Fintan O'Toole and Tony Connelly have written on Brexit over the past few years.
Do I think such opinions are representative of most Britons? No. But they have been a major part of the mainstream discourse peddled by people with prominent voices and in positions of power. There is some part of the English psyche that sees Ireland as a wayward province and not a real sovereign state: witness the moaning and complaining when the UK became a third country about Irish people using the EU lane in airports that we were being "treated specially" - that kind of thinking assumes that Ireland is not its own sovereign state.
Also, the "solid majority" in NI isn't so solid anymore. Unionism is on the decline, nationalism is gaining more of a foothold, and the broad apathetic middle is growing. There's a reason why Sinn Féin is now the largest party there.
[1] Let's leave out the multiple levels of historical irony in what she said, and just focus on the fact that Ireland can feed itself five times over even though agriculture is now a tiny part of the economy, but the UK doesn't produce enough food to feed itself.
I'm sorry, but I think that Irish media is giving you an exaggerated view of Ireland's significance in the British psyche. The sad truth is that your typical Englishman doesn't think of Ireland much at all except when watching rugby and drinking Guinness.
I've never heard anyone talk about annexing Ireland or making Ireland part of the UK again (aren't those two things synonymous?). I have heard Brits complaining about having to use non-EU lanes at airports, but that has nothing to do with Ireland - it's a completely predictable and negative consequence for Britons of a very divisive and unpopular political decision. I promise you that few people in England care either way what happens to Ireland, or at least no more than we care about, say, Sweden or any other near-neighbour who we're not at war with.
Hell, even Northern Ireland doesn't get much attention here, and that's part of our country. Most young Brits today are completely uneducated about the Troubles (although they've heard of it) and probably can't name a single Northern Irish politician. Brexit was a welcome reminder to the rest of us that Northern Ireland exists; our current dilemma is caused by the necessity of reconciling two utterly incompatible goals - keeping Northern Ireland within the same system as the UK while maintaining an open land border with an EU country. (The irreconcilability of these goals was pointed out by many people before the referendum, so I guess we can't say we weren't warned.)
> the "solid majority" in NI isn't so solid anymore.
Yep, I'm aware of that, and Brexit has definitely eroded that majority. Irish unification (as foretold by Star Trek) within my lifetime seems increasingly likely. Good for them - it's for the people of Northern Ireland to decide for themselves and I truly don't care which way they decide.
That was not my intended emphasis, but I think you could make a good case for it anyway. It involved the dispossession and genocide of native peoples in North America and Australasia. It was built on slave plantations in the Caribbean, and led to state-engineered famines in India. The total human toll is enormous.
Yes, the Queen took the throne at the twilight of the British Empire. But it was in the midst of the Malayan emergency, the Mau Mau uprising, the Suez crisis was on the horizon, and South Africa had just launched the apartheid regime. Those were all, in different ways, attempts to stamp out democratic independence. Britain didn't relinquish its sub-Saharan African and Caribbean territories until the 1960s. You cannot cleanly separate the Queen from the empire which she crowned.
The Queen willingly became head of a Commonwealth that included dependent colonies, and a British state that was actively repressing several independence movements. That the head of the Commonwealth is coupled with it is obvious, not my 'choice'.
If that's your measuring stick then Adolf should get the credit for creating the right condition.
European colonial power would have never left if they hadn't got into war of attrition with Hitlar.
British left their biggest colony India only when Indian soldiers revolted and they were too weak to crush it post WW2. It was simply not possible to rule after this incident.
Elizabeth II was the most decolonial monarch in history. Almost all our colonies gained their independence during her reign, and insofar as the empire was "extraordinary cruel", almost all of that cruelty occurred before her reign.
By all means let's have a reasoned discussion about the legacy of the empire, but this is not the place.
Given that most empires in history were pretty darn cruel, you might have to justify the idea that the British Empire was extraordinarily cruel, especially given that the Queen only reigned in its last years and that many of the former members of the Empire chose to stay on as part of the Commonwealth. Also the British Empire is unique (AFAIK?) in having wound itself up more or less peacefully at the end, rather than needing to be destroyed by a massive rebellion or war - the usual way empires usually die (well, except for the pesky Americas of course... but that was a bit before Liz's time!)
> former members of the Empire chose to stay on as part of the Commonwealth
Being in the Commonwealth doesn't mean "staying on" the British Empire - it just means belonging to a very, very loose trade block on which Britain temporarily exercised an outsized influence. Recent developments (like the inability of subsequent UK governments to replace Commonwealth leadership) have shown that even that influence has now gone. At this point the Commonwealth is little more than an administrative construct for trade-related issues.
The Queen was not responsible for the acts of her children once they became adults, whatever they may be, no more than any mother is. As for comments about what she was like in private, who can really say?
But perhaps more to the point - does it matter? The Queen was The Queen and not Elizabeth Windsor because of the exceptionally strict and rigorous separation she kept between her private life and her public role. She had a very long life, yet rarely if ever did it become known what her personal or political views actually were. Undoubtably she had help in this from an establishment that tacitly agreed to uphold these conventions, but ultimately it was down to her. The Queen was, in some very real sense, not an individual with a personality and all the complexities individuals bring but an abstraction, a constitutional icon, that was created and maintained by a woman named Elizabeth Windsor through sheer force of will.
This is easier to see when you contrast it with King Charles III of course, whose personal views and personal life is well documented. A big question mark is whether he will now adopt the conventions that his mother sustained and become that abstraction, or whether he will be a monarch of opinions.
W.R.T. the Empire, this is probably not the thread for it, but it slowly became the Commonwealth over the period of Elizabeth's reign and it did so in a unique and largely peaceful manner. She was born just after World War 1, into a world that had been torn apart by war between empires. She died in a world where empires had long ago ceased to exist. Where there were exceptions to that peaceful transition, it wasn't because the Queen sent in her army to capture or recapture territory as it was for most of history. That's the reason she was the Queen and not merely a Queen: it's that legacy of peaceful transition that left her the notional reigning monarch over large parts of the world, even decades after the British Empire had ceased to exist. Even if that's a mere historical convention and not political reality, what other empires had such good relations with its old territories like that? Not many, and the Queen deserves a lot of credit for that outcome.
I am not being mean but that is historically illiterate. Britain had over seventy overseas territories in 1952, including swathes of dependent colonies across Africa and the Middle East. The Labour government that had just left office had a full-throated vision of a recrudescent British Empire. Britain violently repressed independence movements in Malaysia, Kenya, Cyprus and Yemen while the Queen sat on the throne. South Africa had just entered into apartheid. The Suez Crisis was still to come.
She and her family is responsible for a lot of atrocities around the world. Yet a lot of people here are eulogizing as if she was a saint who taught art of living to the people.
To me this is a demonstration of power of conditioning and media management.
My family is Argentine. The Queen’s son personally boarded a war ship to travel 7000km away to kill Argentines because they dared assert sovereignty against another country in a completely separate hemisphere of the Earth. The idea that the days of empire building are behind us is false.
Argentina itself is a creation of Spanish Imperialism, and British control of the islands dates to that same era, before Argentina became a nation. I don't see how either one can be claimed to be more or less creations of Imperialism than the other.
The fact is the British foreign office had been trying to find ways to offload the islands on Argentina for ages. The British government felt they were an expensive nuisance that were an obstacle to better relations in the region. The Galtieri regime only invaded because they needed a boost in popularity. Negotiation is one thing, but military occupation quite another.
There is (or could have been) a legitimate discussion to be had about the history of control of the islands. Sure. But those who resort to pre-emptive military force, when facing no threat to themselves, have no business complaining when the resulting conflict goes against them. Suez is a good example of us learning that lesson the hard way.
My understanding was that the Falklands voted to remain in the UK and the UK fought to defend that democratic wish. If this is wrong please inform me so I can update my knowledge. If it's correct though, I don't see how fighting to defend a democratic mandate is a bad thing? Aren't we all cheering on Ukraine for exactly this right now?
Yes, all of the British voted to remain. None of the Argentine, or other South Americans were legally allowed to cast a ballot. I guess that's the UK's idea of a democracy.
Surely the only people who should have got a vote in this matter are the people living on the island? If you’re going to let everyone vote on everything then the entire world would end up being owned by China because it’s got the most people.
> Surely the only people who should have got a vote in this matter are the people living on the island? If you’re going to let everyone vote on everything then the entire world would end up being owned by China because it’s got the most people.
I wasn't aware of this, so there were Argentinians and others who were permanently living on the island who weren't allowed to vote? Surely this is not the case today? I would definitely have to read more from all sides to get a better picture of the entire event from all perspectives.
Can you describe what they did, personally, that makes them responsible for atrocities? Yes I know she was head of state, but she had no significant executive or legislative power. I don't see how she's responsible in a practical sense for such things any more than any British citizen.
> In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.
A wise move indeed, if Blair's record is to be taken into account.
She claims fealty by right of blood, reigned as the crown of an extraordinarily cruel empire, and frequently interceded in the democratic government of Britain to protect her private interests.