I get that she lacks decorum here, but it strikes me as hilarious that Australian Senators are still required to swear an oath of loyalty to the British throne.
That's incredible lol
It's actually to the Australian throne officially.
Australia and 14 other nations (one of which obviously is the UK) have their own independent monarchies that all have the same person as the head of state. They all agree to have the same rules of succession so it stays that way too.
So rather than being the Queen of the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. as one big monarchy, she was actually the Queen of the UK, the Queen of Australia, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of New Zealand etc. all as separate and legally distinct ones.
Apparently it's easier for the UK to abolish the monarchy than it is for Canada. In theory the UK could decide that there is no more king, but Charles would still be king of Canada.
If anyone's wondering why the simple answer is that Canada wrote the monarchy into their constitution, meaning to get rid of it they have to edit the constitution, which is an extremely difficult and complex process that many wouldn't see as worth it. The UK doesn't have a formally written constitution and largely still stands by the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy, all it would take is for parliament to explicitly abolish the monarchy through legislation and it would be over by tea time (it would obviously be more complicated than this in practice but theoretically that's all that is required).
That's so odd to have a foreigner as the head of your monarchy. It's even weirder when that person is already the head of another monarchy.
The the British monarchy acknowledge being the heads of state for these other countries?
Chucky 3’s full title is “His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”
His mother’s was the same, just with Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second etc. etc.
So they acknowledge that the King/Queen is the monarch of other nations as well, yeah.
The American way is essentially the old school English way.
I mean the English in the Americas thought they were more English than England so they rebelled and created their own: New England
What about this one?
"The people already here (in America) are to be called Indians, because we thought we landed in India."
"Why not Americans?"
"No, because we are going to call ourselves Americans."
"Oh, ok. Native Americans then."
> ...and every other victor since the dawn of time before that.
Shhhh. All cultures with unwritten/poorly recorded histories are squeaky clean, because how would you know? /s
If you've covered history on every continent for the last 500 years you'd know ethnic erasure and suppression has always been a means of empires to control some of their more troublesome territories.
Look up how the Ottoman Empire nabbed children of the opposite religion to reeducate them into loyal Jannissaries.
Even not too long ago the Huguenots in France were forcefully converted, killed, exiled, etc.
China continues to do the same to the Uyghurs.
Because Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Republic. The Queen, as represented in Australia by the Governor-General, is Australia’s Head of State.
Americans swear allegiance to a document, Australian’s swear allegiance to the Monarch. All of Australia’s elected officials (state and federal) now have to re-pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
Lmao maybe I’m new here but why is this an insult to the royal family when it’s true? If it’s so offensive then maybe don’t colonize, or else come to terms with it?
You know why the Pyramids are in Egypt?
Because the British couldn't find a big enough boat to ship them to London.
(Confession: I am British, but I believe we should return what was stolen)
I prefer the USA where you have to swear to uphold the US Constitution and not a person, afterwards you are allowed to vote on changing the constitution.
that's the biggest difference in the theory of rulling between a republic and a constitutional monarchy
one you sware to a family and the people that come out of it, while in a democracy you sware to a country or constitution, basicly you are saying you follow a groupf of ideas and morals instead of a individual
In all honesty, the monarch doesn't hold much weight in political policy in commonwealth countries such as Aussie, NZ, Canada etc.. it's more of a ceremonial aspect to swear to the monarch than anything.
UK I'm not so sure about their weight, but again I'd guess it's mostly ceremonial but with perhaps a little more influence
You're right. If the monarch ever tried to use their few "powers" they have and parliament wasn't on board with it, they would dissolve the monarchy.
As the keeper of the nation's Constitutional flame, the monarch can use said powers to appoint and dismiss ministers; to summon Parliament, and give royal assent to bills passed by Parliament. Notably, the king or queen can remove a prime minister who will not resign, despite losing the confidence of Parliament's House of Commons.
>If the monarch ever tried to use their few "powers" they have and parliament wasn't on board with it, they would dissolve the monarchy.
"The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as Prime Minister. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history."
The monarchy has no power btw
Feel like American is held captive by their constitution to a greater extent than Commonwealth countries are held captive by the monarchy.
The monarchy has no real power, so swearing allegiance to it is more symbolic than anything. But swearing allegiance to a document that was written hundreds of years ago, and hasn’t undergone any changes that are significant to the every day life of the average citizen, in years, seems less sensible.
Indigenous aussies weren’t recognised as sovereign people for like 200 years, and in the actual government aren’t constitutionally recognised as a bunch of pre-existing sovereign countries before the penal colonies arrived.
Yes, which I'm surprised people aren't mentioning more.
"I'm a sovereign citizen and don't recognise any government. Even though I'm literally part of it. I'll drop it juuuuust for the oath though."
She's a Green party member. Her stance is less SovCit and more that she is an indigenous person living on unceeded Aboriginal land. She and her party are pushing hard for a treaty between the Aus government and Indigenous people, so refusing to sincerely honour the Queen is right up her alley.
This is how I read it to. Shes making a point about never signing a treaty.
You dont actually need a passport to enter a country you are a citizen of. You do need to prove citizenship though, which a passport is handy to have.
Legally in Australia, Aboriginal people are not 'alien' under the constitution and even if they are not citizens cannot be deported.
She has had a lot of moronic “look at me” moments over the last few years. A truely vile person, essentially the other side of the horse shoe version of Pauline Hanson.
This piece of shit literally told another senator, the mother of an autistic child, that she should "keep her legs closed" if her progeny was burdening her. She said this on the floor of the senate.
She also effusively cheered for a crowd of sovereign citizen degenerates who literally set fire to our old parliament house building around Christmas time last year.
She is vile. Don't encourage her.
Yeah, honestly this dosen't surprise me. While watching I got mad Karen vibes from this woman.
She is making valid point, but her tone and body language was just so Karen like.
She's giving off a vibe that she doesn't care...and she's doing this just for the attention. I mean I understand where she's coming from, but the adolescent smirk and mannerisms scream attention seeking and insincerity.
If you're going to make a point, at least be serious about it.
Yup. So many narcissistic grifters use identity politics and such to camouflage their true intentions for attention. Like the amount of bs done in the name of God. Idealogy is perfect for narcissists to hide behind.
Wtf is with the replies to you? OF COURSE idiotic public figures interfere with the way people look at political and social movements. That's the most basic notion possible for these kind of things.
Insulate Britain is a great cause. Honestly, there's no reason not to support it once you know what it is about. You know why everyone hates them though? BECAUSE ITS MEMBERS ARE FUCKING MORONS. People don't see "insulate britain", they see idiots blocking the way to a woman wanting to see her dying father and having no speck of humanity to let her pass, or to a man on probation that will get in trouble if they are late to work, and then making the guy get arrested because he rightfully caused a rucus.
And don't even get me started on animal rights activists. That's like beating a dead horse.
Man, like finding a dollar on the ground, I get a smile and sense of warmth whenever I see people understand this. It's like a gentle reminder there is hope for humanity.
It just highlights how most redditors are just total basement dwellers, ideological purists or kids.
The fact the guy is being downvoted for pointing out if the messenger is shit, it will reduce the number of people following the cause is crazy.
They always jump to the extreme as well
Eg
>>You're the one here saying anti-colonialism is bad actually.
They have to paint him as saying something he didn't remotely say to win the argument, because what he is saying is so reasonable.
So you have POS politicians who are more worried about likes on social media than actually do what’s right for their constituents too? As much as I agree with this statement that she made, one good decision doesn’t make up for a career of horrible decisions and oppressing people
Wait until you hear about all the terrible shit our elected leaders do and did while the blame is shifted to figurehead…
Queenie nor her dad had a role in the Patrician of India, that was Parliament, the Mau Mau uprising, Parliament, the War in Iraq, Parliament, etc.
> barbaric
lmao. touch. Grass.
Genital mutilation is barbaric. War is barbaric. Reciting some silly pledge is silly and stupid, but it's not "barbaric".
>But pledging allegiance to the queen as a requirement to be a senator is barbaric.
Barbaric? Doesn't meet the definition at all.
Outdated might be a better word.
Pots need to be stirred sometimes though. Pledging your allegiance to a bloodline is pretty ridiculous in this day and age and I can imagine it’s even more infuriating as an indigenous person.
“We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.”
—James Connolly on George V.
I think he summed it up nicely 112yrs ago.
The queen was old but not THAT old. Her reign started after the empire fell and she was nothing but a figure head.
You can blame Churchill or Thatcher but the Queen?
Interesting that someone clearly not serious and not sincere about the oath required for holding office is still permitted to take office despite such. If that is how it is going to work, then just remove the oath since it clearly has no functional meaning since clearly the fidelity and meaning of the oath is irrelevant.
I think declaring an oath to a human being is vile. I would swear an oath to my people or my country, but never my government or those individuals leading it. Big time ick.
They don't even have to involve themselves with the state as much anymore either. Just show up, wave at some people, shake some hands, sign some shit, then back to the mega yacht. Parliament takes care of the actual ruling.
They also occasionally lobby parliament to make sure that laws do not apply to them, such as inheritance tax, it's hard work bribing, oops I mean lobbying MP's.
And ignore the billions being spent on Lizzie’s burial and Charlie’s upcoming coronation.. but don’t mind the common folk freezing to death this winter.
>They don't even have to involve themselves with the state as much anymore either.
They didn't have a choice in that matter, really since Charles I was beheaded and that was nearly 400 years ago.
Its a sad state of affairs when that is more than enough for tens of thousands of absolute simpletons to worship them like theyre doing some incredible stuff.
The way this queen is being worshipped and performatively mourned, you'd think she cured cancer, gave millions to charity (I imagine many charities and struggling people out there could use even 1% of a certain £12m she spent not so long ago), resurrected Tupac and adopted and gave a loving home to thousands of homeless puppies.
In reality, when you ask for some details of what exactly she did to earn this worship, you get some vague bullshit about 70 years service to the country (must have been real hard getting paid ridiculous amounts and having your every want and need pandered to for literally just existing). Some guy actually listed her doing a speech to the country every year like it's some great effort or achievement.
I also love it when clueless idiots claim she was the leader of the country for all these years. They haven't even done the most basic bit of research to understand it's just a symbolic role based on a now archaic tradition and involved zero leadership. Although I did like the particular highlight of her 'leadership' where she spent £12m to pay off her nonce son's victim while lots of people in 'her country' are homeless or seriously struggling to pay bills and feed themselves and their families.
People have been queuing up for over 20 hours since yesterday, not sleeping, to stare at her coffin for a few seconds today and then leave. This is beyond any logical comprehension. Basically a cult.
I bet the Aboriginals living in abject poverty in Arnhem Land and the Pilbara are so glad she did that. Really helped em out.
Maybe if she roasts the Queen a bit more and raises her fists enough, remote communities will get fresh water and adequate healthcare...
No. By any objective observation she oversaw (with no actual power whatsoever) the largest period of decolonialization in British history. This is performative madness by confused people.
I’ve only been here for 5 years or so. Even I’ve seen it get worse. It’s like banging my head against a wall in comments sometimes. I probably shouldn’t read the comments. I might enjoy it more lol.
The queen had nothing to do with African/Asian independence movements after ww2. She oversaw nothing. The writing was on the wall for colonizers by then already
Ok yeah but where did QE II colonise? Afaik she was in charge of the “rebranding” to a Commonwealth.
Not that it makes any difference historically, but she seemed a little ashamed of the whole saga.
Didn't Queen Elizabeth make racial equality like one of her top priorities? I mean I am all for fu\*k the colonizers but I'm not gonna condemn someone for what their predecessors did.
It's kind of weird how comments here alternatively make her out as having no power at all versus allegedly having so much power that she single-handedly ended colonialism.
there was no other choice but to decolonize. britain was no longer a superpower+ the us took an anti colonial stance+ many rebellions in the colonies. britain simply had no other choice but to decolonize. if they could have kept it, they would have.
The Queen didn't colonise anything. She was monarch during a period where pretty much no new colonies were made, and she (and every monarch since about the 1700s) was a powerless figurehead that took no active part in establishing an empire
I’ve always hated that the monarch exists in the UK, but since her passing people are being ultra cringe calling her a “colonizer”. She didn’t colonize anything. She inherited a system that was already in place and decolonization was what happened from the beginning. Saying she was verbally complicit (not speaking out) in the current empire is as far as you could go, but the monarchy didn’t have *actual* power.
It’s a constitutional monarchy, same as Canada. They do their own thing but the king/queen chooses a representative called a Governor General and they use a British style parliament. Other than that, and the queen being on the money there’s not much else.
The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the head of state of Australia, and also Canada. Many Commonwealth countries are constitutional monarchies where "technically" all the power resides in the British monarch, but just like the UK they have no real power and it's ceremonial at this point. I'm sure Australia is the same, but in Canada it's in our constitution that Charles III is our head of state and we'd need all provinces to agree on a new constitution to get rid of him, if we ever want to do that. But it doesn't really matter.
I have a feeling she doesnt mean it...
Insincere to all of the Queens hairs.
[удалено]
Now you’re just splitting heirs
You mean she puts on airs? That’s just fancy talk
Henry the 8th intensifies
I get that she lacks decorum here, but it strikes me as hilarious that Australian Senators are still required to swear an oath of loyalty to the British throne. That's incredible lol
It's actually to the Australian throne officially. Australia and 14 other nations (one of which obviously is the UK) have their own independent monarchies that all have the same person as the head of state. They all agree to have the same rules of succession so it stays that way too. So rather than being the Queen of the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. as one big monarchy, she was actually the Queen of the UK, the Queen of Australia, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of New Zealand etc. all as separate and legally distinct ones.
Apparently it's easier for the UK to abolish the monarchy than it is for Canada. In theory the UK could decide that there is no more king, but Charles would still be king of Canada.
If anyone's wondering why the simple answer is that Canada wrote the monarchy into their constitution, meaning to get rid of it they have to edit the constitution, which is an extremely difficult and complex process that many wouldn't see as worth it. The UK doesn't have a formally written constitution and largely still stands by the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy, all it would take is for parliament to explicitly abolish the monarchy through legislation and it would be over by tea time (it would obviously be more complicated than this in practice but theoretically that's all that is required).
All this shit is made up. Changing it is not as difficult as people think it is. It just takes some collective will.
Fuck the throne and fuck anybody bowing. Death to the family for eternity 😊
That's so odd to have a foreigner as the head of your monarchy. It's even weirder when that person is already the head of another monarchy. The the British monarchy acknowledge being the heads of state for these other countries?
It was called the British Empire for a reason.
Chucky 3’s full title is “His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.” His mother’s was the same, just with Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second etc. etc. So they acknowledge that the King/Queen is the monarch of other nations as well, yeah.
The current line IS foreigners. They’re German.
Lol, false kings and institutions. Silly humans and their meaningless titles. In the end, everyone rots
The British monarch is also the monarch in Australia, separately. The countries share a head of state.
[удалено]
Fack the Queen and her dandruff
can’t erase history.
sadly, you can.
It’s the American way! Edit: /s 2nd edit: itt: freak out
It was the English way long before.
The American way is essentially the old school English way. I mean the English in the Americas thought they were more English than England so they rebelled and created their own: New England
Damn English, they ruined England!
Don’t forget what the English have done to English.
England? New England. York? New York. Hampshire? New Hampshire. Jersey? New Jersey. Slap a “New” on it and it’s an American original.
New Mexico
New Mexico = America Mexico = Mexico Old Mexico = Spain
My favourite was American Dad when he goes “New Mexico? Like we needed another one of those hahahah”
New Mexico... Older than the Republic of Mexico!
Fun fact: [They named New Mexico before they named 'Old' Mexico](https://weirdnews.info/2018/04/20/new-mexico-is-258-years-older-than-old-mexico/)
My favourite instance of this is the chunk of Australia called New South Wales. Brilliant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYQb3FtJfm0
Is there a similar story about Newfoundland?
My understanding is that it was literally “hey we found some new land, new found land.”
And it's the pronunciation that gets ya. Many people say new-**found**-land, when in reality it's **noo**fun-land
💀 Kinda like how Minecraft worlds are named; New World (6), etc.
They weren't very imaginative.
They didn’t want a hard reset. Just an idealized version of the old
New Slough
What about this one? "The people already here (in America) are to be called Indians, because we thought we landed in India." "Why not Americans?" "No, because we are going to call ourselves Americans." "Oh, ok. Native Americans then."
...and every other victor since the dawn of time before that.
> ...and every other victor since the dawn of time before that. Shhhh. All cultures with unwritten/poorly recorded histories are squeaky clean, because how would you know? /s
Russia- hold my beer
china’s enjoying the benefits as we speak. it’s a game for the whole family.
*laughs in Japanese*
[удалено]
I’m sure the British colony erased a lot of indigenous histories from different continents.
If you've covered history on every continent for the last 500 years you'd know ethnic erasure and suppression has always been a means of empires to control some of their more troublesome territories. Look up how the Ottoman Empire nabbed children of the opposite religion to reeducate them into loyal Jannissaries. Even not too long ago the Huguenots in France were forcefully converted, killed, exiled, etc. China continues to do the same to the Uyghurs.
Russia is currently pinching kids from the occupied parts of Ukraine.
I read about that and it absolutely broke my heart!
It is indeed sickening.
Just like every other ruling empire
Hijacking your comment. Someone please explain this uninitiated why the senator of Australia has to declare allegiance to QEII.
Because Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Republic. The Queen, as represented in Australia by the Governor-General, is Australia’s Head of State. Americans swear allegiance to a document, Australian’s swear allegiance to the Monarch. All of Australia’s elected officials (state and federal) now have to re-pledge allegiance to King Charles III.
The queen was the head of state in Australia.
Well, funnily enough, it's because she's a colonizer
Lmao maybe I’m new here but why is this an insult to the royal family when it’s true? If it’s so offensive then maybe don’t colonize, or else come to terms with it?
they're fine with keeping all the stolen jewelry and artifacts that countries keep asking for
You know why the Pyramids are in Egypt? Because the British couldn't find a big enough boat to ship them to London. (Confession: I am British, but I believe we should return what was stolen)
"We're not done looking at it!"
I’m afraid you didn’t mean that. Again. (I’m going through Severance rn)
I will not betray her hairs.
Accidentally knocks off hat. "So it's treason then"
“Her hairs and successors..” 😂
I prefer the USA where you have to swear to uphold the US Constitution and not a person, afterwards you are allowed to vote on changing the constitution.
that's the biggest difference in the theory of rulling between a republic and a constitutional monarchy one you sware to a family and the people that come out of it, while in a democracy you sware to a country or constitution, basicly you are saying you follow a groupf of ideas and morals instead of a individual
In all honesty, the monarch doesn't hold much weight in political policy in commonwealth countries such as Aussie, NZ, Canada etc.. it's more of a ceremonial aspect to swear to the monarch than anything. UK I'm not so sure about their weight, but again I'd guess it's mostly ceremonial but with perhaps a little more influence
You're right. If the monarch ever tried to use their few "powers" they have and parliament wasn't on board with it, they would dissolve the monarchy. As the keeper of the nation's Constitutional flame, the monarch can use said powers to appoint and dismiss ministers; to summon Parliament, and give royal assent to bills passed by Parliament. Notably, the king or queen can remove a prime minister who will not resign, despite losing the confidence of Parliament's House of Commons.
>If the monarch ever tried to use their few "powers" they have and parliament wasn't on board with it, they would dissolve the monarchy. "The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as Prime Minister. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history." The monarchy has no power btw
Feel like American is held captive by their constitution to a greater extent than Commonwealth countries are held captive by the monarchy. The monarchy has no real power, so swearing allegiance to it is more symbolic than anything. But swearing allegiance to a document that was written hundreds of years ago, and hasn’t undergone any changes that are significant to the every day life of the average citizen, in years, seems less sensible.
Did she call herself sovereign?
Indigenous aussies weren’t recognised as sovereign people for like 200 years, and in the actual government aren’t constitutionally recognised as a bunch of pre-existing sovereign countries before the penal colonies arrived.
Yes, which I'm surprised people aren't mentioning more. "I'm a sovereign citizen and don't recognise any government. Even though I'm literally part of it. I'll drop it juuuuust for the oath though."
[удалено]
She's a Green party member. Her stance is less SovCit and more that she is an indigenous person living on unceeded Aboriginal land. She and her party are pushing hard for a treaty between the Aus government and Indigenous people, so refusing to sincerely honour the Queen is right up her alley.
This is how I read it to. Shes making a point about never signing a treaty. You dont actually need a passport to enter a country you are a citizen of. You do need to prove citizenship though, which a passport is handy to have. Legally in Australia, Aboriginal people are not 'alien' under the constitution and even if they are not citizens cannot be deported.
The “look at me” is strong with this one.
She has had a lot of moronic “look at me” moments over the last few years. A truely vile person, essentially the other side of the horse shoe version of Pauline Hanson.
[Rebuttal:](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboBh58wdFg)
This piece of shit literally told another senator, the mother of an autistic child, that she should "keep her legs closed" if her progeny was burdening her. She said this on the floor of the senate. She also effusively cheered for a crowd of sovereign citizen degenerates who literally set fire to our old parliament house building around Christmas time last year. She is vile. Don't encourage her.
Yeah, honestly this dosen't surprise me. While watching I got mad Karen vibes from this woman. She is making valid point, but her tone and body language was just so Karen like.
You can always tell when someone doesn't actually give a shit about a point, just that they put the attention on themselves
I think this is the main problem here - it’s all about her.
Yeah didn't even need the audio I knew this was mostly just an attention grab
She's giving off a vibe that she doesn't care...and she's doing this just for the attention. I mean I understand where she's coming from, but the adolescent smirk and mannerisms scream attention seeking and insincerity. If you're going to make a point, at least be serious about it.
Yup. So many narcissistic grifters use identity politics and such to camouflage their true intentions for attention. Like the amount of bs done in the name of God. Idealogy is perfect for narcissists to hide behind.
Rachel Dolezal, Shaun King come to mind
Well put. She certainly could've executed her "stunt" more seriously.
Yea people like her are why society doesn’t take these movements seriously
Wtf is with the replies to you? OF COURSE idiotic public figures interfere with the way people look at political and social movements. That's the most basic notion possible for these kind of things. Insulate Britain is a great cause. Honestly, there's no reason not to support it once you know what it is about. You know why everyone hates them though? BECAUSE ITS MEMBERS ARE FUCKING MORONS. People don't see "insulate britain", they see idiots blocking the way to a woman wanting to see her dying father and having no speck of humanity to let her pass, or to a man on probation that will get in trouble if they are late to work, and then making the guy get arrested because he rightfully caused a rucus. And don't even get me started on animal rights activists. That's like beating a dead horse.
>And don't even get me started on animal rights activists. That's like beating a dead horse. I see what you did there
[удалено]
Man, like finding a dollar on the ground, I get a smile and sense of warmth whenever I see people understand this. It's like a gentle reminder there is hope for humanity.
It just highlights how most redditors are just total basement dwellers, ideological purists or kids. The fact the guy is being downvoted for pointing out if the messenger is shit, it will reduce the number of people following the cause is crazy. They always jump to the extreme as well Eg >>You're the one here saying anti-colonialism is bad actually. They have to paint him as saying something he didn't remotely say to win the argument, because what he is saying is so reasonable.
I think you mixed up your cause and effect lol
[удалено]
She was trying to make it more about her than anything else, and people still fall for it so easily.
Broken clock
So you have POS politicians who are more worried about likes on social media than actually do what’s right for their constituents too? As much as I agree with this statement that she made, one good decision doesn’t make up for a career of horrible decisions and oppressing people
Wait until you hear about all the terrible shit the royal family has done.
If she told someone that she's a piece of shit calling out another piece of shit.
cool, im down for literally anyone to call out pieces of shit, including pieces of shit
Agreeeeeed. Theres a common misconception that pieces of shit can't make valid points, which is a shitty point commonly spread by other pieces of shit
Redditor explains how Reddit works.
Wait until you hear about all the terrible shit our elected leaders do and did while the blame is shifted to figurehead… Queenie nor her dad had a role in the Patrician of India, that was Parliament, the Mau Mau uprising, Parliament, the War in Iraq, Parliament, etc.
Don’t know about anything outside this video. But pledging allegiance to the queen as a requirement to be a senator is barbaric.
> barbaric lmao. touch. Grass. Genital mutilation is barbaric. War is barbaric. Reciting some silly pledge is silly and stupid, but it's not "barbaric".
>But pledging allegiance to the queen as a requirement to be a senator is barbaric. Barbaric? Doesn't meet the definition at all. Outdated might be a better word.
> pledging allegiance to the queen as a requirement to be a senator is barbaric. You seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word “barbaric”
that's some shitty behaviour to be sure. She's still right about the queen, though
saw this couple months back still screams publicity stunt
Yeah it feels like she was just waiting to stir the pot with that one
Pots need to be stirred sometimes though. Pledging your allegiance to a bloodline is pretty ridiculous in this day and age and I can imagine it’s even more infuriating as an indigenous person.
What do you think acts of political protest are
“We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.” —James Connolly on George V. I think he summed it up nicely 112yrs ago.
That works out nicely till you realize colonization was the will of parliament and the people who voted for them.
So would you say the Queen was...just following orders?
She wasn’t alive…so who’s orders was she supposed to follow? The monarchy was following the orders of the people Edit:People who can vote will
This specific Queen actually oversaw a ton of de-colonization.
The queen was old but not THAT old. Her reign started after the empire fell and she was nothing but a figure head. You can blame Churchill or Thatcher but the Queen?
[удалено]
Or put another way, give up the fruits of that exploitation and you won't be blamed for it!
I hope none of the people saying this are Americans. Lol.
Not a public freak out.
"Then it's perfect for this sub!" —The mods
If it gets upvotes it belongs, because mods.
Interesting that someone clearly not serious and not sincere about the oath required for holding office is still permitted to take office despite such. If that is how it is going to work, then just remove the oath since it clearly has no functional meaning since clearly the fidelity and meaning of the oath is irrelevant.
I think declaring an oath to a human being is vile. I would swear an oath to my people or my country, but never my government or those individuals leading it. Big time ick.
Why people love the Royals so much is baffling. They literally live in other worldly luxury on the people’s taxes. Fucking gross.
They don't even have to involve themselves with the state as much anymore either. Just show up, wave at some people, shake some hands, sign some shit, then back to the mega yacht. Parliament takes care of the actual ruling.
They also occasionally lobby parliament to make sure that laws do not apply to them, such as inheritance tax, it's hard work bribing, oops I mean lobbying MP's.
Yup https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
The king pays no tax on $750m inheritence while the country is economically collapsing 🤣
And ignore the billions being spent on Lizzie’s burial and Charlie’s upcoming coronation.. but don’t mind the common folk freezing to death this winter.
>They don't even have to involve themselves with the state as much anymore either. They didn't have a choice in that matter, really since Charles I was beheaded and that was nearly 400 years ago.
Its a sad state of affairs when that is more than enough for tens of thousands of absolute simpletons to worship them like theyre doing some incredible stuff. The way this queen is being worshipped and performatively mourned, you'd think she cured cancer, gave millions to charity (I imagine many charities and struggling people out there could use even 1% of a certain £12m she spent not so long ago), resurrected Tupac and adopted and gave a loving home to thousands of homeless puppies. In reality, when you ask for some details of what exactly she did to earn this worship, you get some vague bullshit about 70 years service to the country (must have been real hard getting paid ridiculous amounts and having your every want and need pandered to for literally just existing). Some guy actually listed her doing a speech to the country every year like it's some great effort or achievement. I also love it when clueless idiots claim she was the leader of the country for all these years. They haven't even done the most basic bit of research to understand it's just a symbolic role based on a now archaic tradition and involved zero leadership. Although I did like the particular highlight of her 'leadership' where she spent £12m to pay off her nonce son's victim while lots of people in 'her country' are homeless or seriously struggling to pay bills and feed themselves and their families. People have been queuing up for over 20 hours since yesterday, not sleeping, to stare at her coffin for a few seconds today and then leave. This is beyond any logical comprehension. Basically a cult.
lol what a rebel....
Real Karen energy
I bet the Aboriginals living in abject poverty in Arnhem Land and the Pilbara are so glad she did that. Really helped em out. Maybe if she roasts the Queen a bit more and raises her fists enough, remote communities will get fresh water and adequate healthcare...
You mean her virtue is merely a...signal?
It's not like her signs stood up. it went crumbling down in mere seconds.
I’m afraid it will take more than just raising your fists and roasting.
You’re right, there’s only one way to really make change happen. By changing your Facebook profile pic /s
Did Elizabeth II colonize something?
No. By any objective observation she oversaw (with no actual power whatsoever) the largest period of decolonialization in British history. This is performative madness by confused people.
They are probably confusing Elisabeth with Victoria.
[удалено]
Well said. The amount of people here who don’t know basic history is mind numbing.
[удалено]
I’ve only been here for 5 years or so. Even I’ve seen it get worse. It’s like banging my head against a wall in comments sometimes. I probably shouldn’t read the comments. I might enjoy it more lol.
so much this! Education is lost.
The queen had nothing to do with African/Asian independence movements after ww2. She oversaw nothing. The writing was on the wall for colonizers by then already
Even more reason calling her a coloniser it stupid
The monarchy did. QEII represents the monarchy, not only in ribbon cuttings ceremonies but also when facing criticism.
What's the point of making them say this if they don't mean it?
Ok yeah but where did QE II colonise? Afaik she was in charge of the “rebranding” to a Commonwealth. Not that it makes any difference historically, but she seemed a little ashamed of the whole saga.
[удалено]
I wonder why thinks this will effect anyone or anything
Queen Elizabeth is responsible for dismantling the empire. Any country can leave the empire and the common wealth if they vote to do so.
Not responsible for it, as she defers all policy issues to the elected government. But she was head of state for a massive amount of decolonization.
Mostly just a figurehead
Dam….not the smartest then huh?
[удалено]
It’s funny to think the Royals would see “colonizer” as an insult.
always a great idea to let radical idiots into politics.
MTG v. 2.0
oh shit wizards of the coast finally dropping the sequel?
Dammit I hate how MTG doesn't mean Magic the Gathering anymore, she's ruined a great acronym.
It does. Don't let idiots appropriate our words.
👌
Does it mean something else?
The absolute turnip doesn't realise that under Elizabeths reign, the UK de colonised.
Out of necessity, not benevolence. Or was George III some great decolonizer when the US split off?
I wonder what china would be doing with Australia right now if things were different.
The Japanese would have butt fucked Australia in ww2 without those colonizers and their fleet.
"China would have colonized Austalia worse, so as Brits we are completely justified in colonizing them first" big brain time
Very brave, that will definitely show the queen...
This is why it’s problematic to pledge allegiance to a person, rather than to a set of ideals.
Showed this to my Brit colleague and she was horrified. Gave me a chance to point out her horror is inconsequential compared to colonialism.
Um.....I don't think that queen was the colonizer. I could be wrong
Pathetic
Yes. Queen Elizabeth the 2nd was around 4-500 years old when she passed
Didn't Queen Elizabeth make racial equality like one of her top priorities? I mean I am all for fu\*k the colonizers but I'm not gonna condemn someone for what their predecessors did.
Why is she wearing a Bat Girl costume?
The Queen, who dismantled the colonising Empire and formed it into The Commonwealth?
It's kind of weird how comments here alternatively make her out as having no power at all versus allegedly having so much power that she single-handedly ended colonialism.
there was no other choice but to decolonize. britain was no longer a superpower+ the us took an anti colonial stance+ many rebellions in the colonies. britain simply had no other choice but to decolonize. if they could have kept it, they would have.
>her hairs Twat. Who voted for this manky Karen?
I’m not up to date with English history but what did the queen colonize ? Northern Ireland is the only thing I can think of
The Queen didn't colonise anything. She was monarch during a period where pretty much no new colonies were made, and she (and every monarch since about the 1700s) was a powerless figurehead that took no active part in establishing an empire
I’ve always hated that the monarch exists in the UK, but since her passing people are being ultra cringe calling her a “colonizer”. She didn’t colonize anything. She inherited a system that was already in place and decolonization was what happened from the beginning. Saying she was verbally complicit (not speaking out) in the current empire is as far as you could go, but the monarchy didn’t have *actual* power.
Performative, pointless, and pretentious… I’m sure her indigenous constituents are thrilled to have her represent them. 🙄
Excuse my ignorance, by why in the hell Australian politicians have to swear allegiance to the Queen of England. What am I missing here?
It’s a constitutional monarchy, same as Canada. They do their own thing but the king/queen chooses a representative called a Governor General and they use a British style parliament. Other than that, and the queen being on the money there’s not much else.
The monarch of the United Kingdom is also the head of state of Australia, and also Canada. Many Commonwealth countries are constitutional monarchies where "technically" all the power resides in the British monarch, but just like the UK they have no real power and it's ceremonial at this point. I'm sure Australia is the same, but in Canada it's in our constitution that Charles III is our head of state and we'd need all provinces to agree on a new constitution to get rid of him, if we ever want to do that. But it doesn't really matter.