If you believe the Queen is an exception to the rule that royals are worthless leeches because "she appeared like a kind old lady," please continue reading.
Sources: Further reading Online Article:
- https://lejournaldelafrique.com/elisabeth-ii-une-reine-inoxydable-et-un-empire-qui-refuse-de-mourir/
Let's go over everything, from personal to political. For starters, she made numerous decisions concerning the royal family's and its support staff's activities.
 |
| Photo by Mathew Browne on Unsplash |
She negotiated (or handled the negotiation of) exclusions for palace employees in the Equality and Diversity Act of 2010. She lobbied in the Scottish Parliament for exemptions from wildlife protection legislation for Scotland's royal estates.
She kept her estates from being raided in search of stolen historical or cultural objects. She attempted to persuade the State Poverty Fund to cover the cost of heating Buckingham Palace.
Second, there is her behavior toward her family and her husband, Separate relatives of Elizabeth were publicly declared dead in 1940 and 1961. (Nerissa and Katherine Bowes-Lyon, respectively). In reality, they were hidden away in an institution for the "mentally retarded," were never contacted or visited by Elizabeth, and died in 1986 and 2014, respectively.
She personally defended Prince Andrew against credible assault charges, even going so far as to pay cash settlements for accusers out of her own pocket. Prince Philip, with whom Elizabeth had been involved since 1939, was an open eugenicist.
Then there's her connection to the British government and the British Empire. I won't go through the entire history of the British Empire's deeds, but I will discuss some major "highlights" throughout her reign. During the 1950s and 1960s, the British colony of Kenya experiences the "Mau Mau insurrection," which is ruthlessly suppressed.
Hundreds of thousands of Kenyans are detained in camps, and over a million are confined in isolated rural areas (much like the "ghettos" containing Jews in German held territory during WWII a mere decade earlier). Under these conditions, the British commit numerous crimes against humanity.
She paid a personal visit to the Aden colony in 1954. (now Yemen). Cheering masses greeted her in an elaborately staged show. From 1952 through 1956, discontent with British control reached a fever pitch, culminating in strikes and attacks on occupying police.
The British empire's response was ruthless repression of free expression and street oppression of ordinary individuals. As in Kenya, British forces resorted to brutality, inflicting on men and women were detained. The British eventually withdrew completely in 1967, leaving a mixed legacy in Yemeni states that is still causing local political instability.
Closer to home, as part of "Operation Banner," British forces and paramilitary forces engaged in numerous acts of repression and violence against religious minorities in Northern Ireland from 1969 until 2007. Hundreds of innocent individuals have been killed, while others have been mistreated.
Fourth, there's her connection to the troubled "Crown Jewels." Among the ceremonial artefacts in the "Royal Collection" are several crowns, swords, sceptres, robes, gems, and so on. It contains almost a half-dozen separate "stars of Africa," gigantic diamonds, the largest weighing 530 carats and mined in South African mines during the occupation.
These stones, in particular, can only be described as blood diamonds. Also worth noting is that the Queen had complete control over the royal collection and could do whatever she pleased with it at any time (including repatriate it back to South Africa).
Now, one may argue, as many do, that the crimes of the British Empire or the British State do not lie on Elizabeth II's shoulders because she had limited political influence, but this is a terrible argument. It is not a question of whether she could have prevented such events from happening, though she did little to prevent them; it is a question of legacy. Although the Queen's position was largely symbolic and ceremonial, she nonetheless allowed herself to be a symbol. Everything done by the British government during her reign was done in her name.
The navy ships are "Her Majesty's" ships. As a representative of Parliament, the Prime Minister pays the Queen a weekly audience. "The Queen's most Excellent Majesty" enacts all Acts of Parliament. Members of Parliament, the courts, army soldiers, and naturalized citizens all take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. She made a conscious decision at the age of 25 to become and continue to be Queen every year, every day, every hour, and every second until her death 70 years later. That means she chose to have everything done in her name. Everything done during her rule may be traced to her approval.
One may also claim that, in the 1950s or 1960s, the scope of the crimes against humanity committed by British soldiers in the colonies was not fully understood, even to the Queen. But, over time, such truths become impossible to ignore or pretend didn't happen.
As Queen, she had the potential not merely to educate herself on what was publicly known, but also to conduct in-depth investigations with considerable personal resources and power. Instead, she was fundamentally intellectually oblivious to the legacy of barbarism in the British Empire during her reign. And, despite the fact that she could have abdicated the kingdom at any time between her coronation and yesterday, she did not.
Perhaps there is an argument that all of the above (which is not in dispute as far as I'm aware) could be true and Elizabeth could have been a good person, I cannot imagine such an argument.
Comments
Post a Comment