Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anybody answer some of the legit questions on this thread.

I'm interested in what the queen actually had the authority to do differently, substantively.

Could she have ordered the jewels and other artifacts to go back to the country where they came from?
What could she have done to end the colonization?

Other than the platform that she had to speak out against certain things (which is legit), how could she have directly affected change?

The jewels do not belong to her. Neither do most of what they have. Queen had no real power. George I was the last to lead troops in battle. George III being a bit nuts lost a lot of the power. Victoria lost the rest as she was too young and then closed herself off to the world after her husband died. After that no real power. By tradition and what they consider their constitution which is not written, she could take no political position without the ok of the government. She could not give a speech and say should we give this stuff back without the ok of the government. She had no platform. Let’s say she wanted to go to India and say sorry. She could not without the ok of the government.

Colonization? There has been none new since wwI. The country with her as queen granted independence to all that wanted it. What are you talking about when you say colonization?

What was she? A symbol. We have a written constitution displayed. Our military and gov workers swear to defend. They don’t have that. They have the king. The king or queen is the glue that holds their system together.

None new? Is that your word salad way of spinning it to seem like it’s been all good since WWI?

I’m 43 years old and the first in my family, after many generations, to be born as not a colonized subject. Sins of the father are not magically erased when your still promoting the legacy as something worthy and living off the spoils.

Like yourself living off spoils of your ancestors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anybody answer some of the legit questions on this thread.

I'm interested in what the queen actually had the authority to do differently, substantively.

Could she have ordered the jewels and other artifacts to go back to the country where they came from?
What could she have done to end the colonization?

Other than the platform that she had to speak out against certain things (which is legit), how could she have directly affected change?

The jewels do not belong to her. Neither do most of what they have. Queen had no real power. George I was the last to lead troops in battle. George III being a bit nuts lost a lot of the power. Victoria lost the rest as she was too young and then closed herself off to the world after her husband died. After that no real power. By tradition and what they consider their constitution which is not written, she could take no political position without the ok of the government. She could not give a speech and say should we give this stuff back without the ok of the government. She had no platform. Let’s say she wanted to go to India and say sorry. She could not without the ok of the government.

Colonization? There has been none new since wwI. The country with her as queen granted independence to all that wanted it. What are you talking about when you say colonization?

What was she? A symbol. We have a written constitution displayed. Our military and gov workers swear to defend. They don’t have that. They have the king. The king or queen is the glue that holds their system together.

None new? Is that your word salad way of spinning it to seem like it’s been all good since WWI?

I’m 43 years old and the first in my family, after many generations, to be born as not a colonized subject. Sins of the father are not magically erased when your still promoting the legacy as something worthy and living off the spoils.

Anonymous wrote:Accolades for this beautiful Queen are well deserved. What a classy and tireless worker. We could all learn a lesson from her example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When most of the world across several continents is saying she and all she represented was bad and yes she shares in the blame.
Maybe take your fingers out of your ears and listen.

I have been following the queen very closely since 1952. Can you post any links or let me know where these comments might be posted. I am genuinely interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Queen was literally paid millions a year to represent the UK and quite literally wore jewels stolen from colonies in her crown. She did not apologize for any of these evils. Of course we should judge her legacy based on the British empire. There is no comparison to the average person.

Correct. Her country stole so many jewels and other resources from other countries and the royal family has many. Others sit in their museums. They should all be given back. This is not ancient history. India only got its independence in 1947.

I do not disagree with anything you wrote. But it still doesn't answer the question of how accountable we should hold the late queen.

Did she personally steal or authorizing the stealing of those things? Could she have prevented it?
Did she have the ability to return any of the things the royal family "owned"? (Sincere question on this one. If she personally could have decided to return jewels or other artifacts/treasures to the countries they came from, she should have done it. I'm just not sure she could)
They SHOULD all be given back. Who has the authority to do that? Did the queen?

I am puzzled about who the "we" is that should hold Queen Elizabeth accountable? Is it the United States? The UN? Britain? A group of ethicists? Religious leaders? Lawyers? And why are "we" so pure that "we" can judge others.

Anonymous wrote:When most of the world across several continents is saying she and all she represented was bad and yes she shares in the blame.
Maybe take your fingers out of your ears and listen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anybody answer some of the legit questions on this thread.

I'm interested in what the queen actually had the authority to do differently, substantively.

Could she have ordered the jewels and other artifacts to go back to the country where they came from?
What could she have done to end the colonization?

Other than the platform that she had to speak out against certain things (which is legit), how could she have directly affected change?

The jewels do not belong to her. Neither do most of what they have. Queen had no real power. George I was the last to lead troops in battle. George III being a bit nuts lost a lot of the power. Victoria lost the rest as she was too young and then closed herself off to the world after her husband died. After that no real power. By tradition and what they consider their constitution which is not written, she could take no political position without the ok of the government. She could not give a speech and say should we give this stuff back without the ok of the government. She had no platform. Let’s say she wanted to go to India and say sorry. She could not without the ok of the government.

Colonization? There has been none new since wwI. The country with her as queen granted independence to all that wanted it. What are you talking about when you say colonization?

What was she? A symbol. We have a written constitution displayed. Our military and gov workers swear to defend. They don’t have that. They have the king. The king or queen is the glue that holds their system together.

None new? Is that your word salad way of spinning it to seem like it’s been all good since WWI?

I’m 43 years old and the first in my family, after many generations, to be born as not a colonized subject. Sins of the father are not magically erased when your still promoting the legacy as something worthy and living off the spoils.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anybody answer some of the legit questions on this thread.

I'm interested in what the queen actually had the authority to do differently, substantively.

Could she have ordered the jewels and other artifacts to go back to the country where they came from?
What could she have done to end the colonization?

Other than the platform that she had to speak out against certain things (which is legit), how could she have directly affected change?

The jewels do not belong to her. Neither do most of what they have. Queen had no real power. George I was the last to lead troops in battle. George III being a bit nuts lost a lot of the power. Victoria lost the rest as she was too young and then closed herself off to the world after her husband died. After that no real power. By tradition and what they consider their constitution which is not written, she could take no political position without the ok of the government. She could not give a speech and say should we give this stuff back without the ok of the government. She had no platform. Let’s say she wanted to go to India and say sorry. She could not without the ok of the government.

Colonization? There has been none new since wwI. The country with her as queen granted independence to all that wanted it. What are you talking about when you say colonization?

What was she? A symbol. We have a written constitution displayed. Our military and gov workers swear to defend. They don’t have that. They have the king. The king or queen is the glue that holds their system together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Queen was literally paid millions a year to represent the UK and quite literally wore jewels stolen from colonies in her crown. She did not apologize for any of these evils. Of course we should judge her legacy based on the British empire. There is no comparison to the average person.

Correct. Her country stole so many jewels and other resources from other countries and the royal family has many. Others sit in their museums. They should all be given back. This is not ancient history. India only got its independence in 1947.

Give back all your family stole.

You’re only embarrassing yourself, comparing a middle-class American to English royalty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Queen was literally paid millions a year to represent the UK and quite literally wore jewels stolen from colonies in her crown. She did not apologize for any of these evils. Of course we should judge her legacy based on the British empire. There is no comparison to the average person.

Correct. Her country stole so many jewels and other resources from other countries and the royal family has many. Others sit in their museums. They should all be given back. This is not ancient history. India only got its independence in 1947.

Give back all your family stole.

Anonymous wrote:Can anybody answer some of the legit questions on this thread.

I'm interested in what the queen actually had the authority to do differently, substantively.

Could she have ordered the jewels and other artifacts to go back to the country where they came from?
What could she have done to end the colonization?

Other than the platform that she had to speak out against certain things (which is legit), how could she have directly affected change?