God Save The King

[Oexmelin]

Of course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media. 

That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.

[Josquius]

On the topic of people with bad things to say about the monarchy, here is Liz Truss

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2022-09-06/clip-emerges-of-young-liz-truss-branding-monarchy-disgraceful

[Sheilbh]

The British monarch is a symbol, and therefore it is also a symbol of the long history of the monarchy, and the long history of the United Kingdom, including the long history of British imperialism. That symbolism is, these days, the essence of the function. It goes with the territory.

Otherwise, she's a politician, and would require to ascribe decolonialism to her, as a personal decision, along with accountability (which is in direct contradiction with the idea of monarchy).

(Interestingly, this is very much similar to arguments erupting during the French Revolution. Louis XVI may have been a benign monarch, a nice person, and interested in reform in his own time, but you can't wrap yourself in history when it suits you, hope to wield it as a source of immense prestige and influence, and discard it when it backfires).

Yes. There's a bit of the two bodies theory of the sovereign as well. The criticism of her from a colonised nation is not of her personal acts but as you say she exists as a symbol. It is a criticism of the historical source of much of the UK's wealth, it's historical legacy and the policies of British governments in the 20th century - I think it is fair to emphasise that it wasn't her who made the decisions of British governments in her reign, but by the same token I don't think she gets any of the credit for "winds of change" and decolonisation.

The only slight exemption I'd possibly make is apartheid because she did go to a Commonwealth meeting in Zimbabwe against the advice of the British government when relations were bad in the 80s, because she thought her role in the Commonwealth mattered more - and, as far as we know, it wasn't just an invention of The Crown the closeset she came to pushing constitutional limits was support for sanctions against South Africa again, against the Thatcher government's policies.

I suppose part of this also reflects the tension between the way the Queen (and possibly the UK) is seen from inside and outside. Because I think internally - and you saw this at the jubilee celebrations - the view of the Queen's reign is that she's there through enormous social change. She came to the throne at the centre of a (rapidly declining) empire that was monocultural, monochrome, grey, deferential, constrained - it was only three years after her accession that rationing ended; the UK now is - or sees itself as - post-imperial, multi-cultural, multi-racial, diverse and far more open. And I think there is a lot of truth to that but even if there wasn't it would still matter as the story/interpretation. So I think the internal story of the Queen in the UK has been that story where she's constant while the entire country changes around her, while the external story - especially, I think, the more distant you are from the Queen having some constitutional function which requires adaptation - is the unchanging symbol and that her meaning and interpretation hasn't changed since 1952. I think there is a tension there that is being reflected back.

A part of that is that I've read numerous by children of immigrants saying how much their parents love(d) the royals - I think this is a huge part of why the Windrush scandal was such a betrayal of people. There's been a trend of TikToks etc about mums going crazy about the Queen dying. I'd say over half of them have been women of colour with hashtags from their younger kids about desi, Ghanian, Nigerian, Congolese mums needing an intervention. I've always wondered if part of it is that national days being about weddings, new kids, funerals are really easily relatable to people from any culture - while a national being tied to a historic event or something similar requires a bit more explaining.

As an aside it is absolutely crazy seeing this stuff happen - because you get the theory of how monarchy as an institution survives etc. But seeing the announcement of the Queen's death in one paragraph then immediately saying the "King and Queen Consort" will stay at Balmoral overnight. Then today in parliament I think Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss and Keir Starmer's speeches all ended with "God save the King" - which is something that's been shouted and sung by the crowds at Buckingham Palace (including when Charles did a walkabout meeting people). It is really weird to see that they do actually do the whole "the Queen is dead, long live the King" thing.

Of course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media. 

I think that's why I have find some of the takes from prominent Americans a bit more annoying/edgelord nonsense as you say. I saw an Irish journalist today drawing a distinction between Ireland and Irish responses and Irish-American responses saying that people talking about "Irish Twitter" were verging on misinformation. You can't help but think that in the US there's partly a bit of a displacement activity going on in discussing the consequences and evils of imperialism.

[grumbler]

There is a difference between what people feel about the monarchy and what people feel about a given monarch.  Similarly, I can feel that US police are too violence-prone, while not feeling that about the cops I know personally.

So, there's really no excuse for shitting on the death of the Queen because one doesn't like the monarchy in general.

[Sheilbh]

So, there's really no excuse for shitting on the death of the Queen because one doesn't like the monarchy in general.

I'd add that politically if you support republicanism in the UK - looudly proclaiming how much you dislike the Queen/monarchy right now is probably not a winning strategy Political republicans wonder why they make so little progress when the times they get any attention are when people are happy bcause they've got the day off or are sad, and they just sound like puritan killjoys.

I was thinking about how cunning/clever constitutional monarchy is - as someone who would quite like a republic. Because it's strength is its weakness. It doesn't require a revolution to overthrow, it's really easy - you just have to make enough people care and that's a challenge because in day-to-day life it doesn't matter. So you're relying on slightly abstract principles. Plus the time when it should be easiest - like now when a popular monarch dies to be replaced by a less popular heir - are also the times when sympathy for the monarchy are at its peak. It's quite frustrating.

As an aside struck by Malcolm Turnbull who led the campaign for an Australian republic was quite teary on TV there talking about the Queen and by Paul Keating's really nice statement - again from a man who led the campaign in the 90s referendum for a republic.

[Oexmelin]

As I said, that sort of detachment is easier if, say, to take your example, one never has been on the other end of a police taser. Symbolism "embodied" or "materialized" becomes a lot less academic, and tends to blur the line between the "two bodies" of any institution, a line that is never as neat as we'd like to posit anyways.

[crazy canuck]

Of course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media. 

That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.

An indigenous person I follow on Twitter (because he posts interesting links to work by indigenous scholars and others advocating for indigenous rights) had this to say:  "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II - a blessed journey."

[Barrister]

A part of that is that I've read numerous by children of immigrants saying how much their parents love(d) the royals - I think this is a huge part of why the Windrush scandal was such a betrayal of people. There's been a trend of TikToks etc about mums going crazy about the Queen dying. I'd say over half of them have been women of colour with hashtags from their younger kids about desi, Ghanian, Nigerian, Congolese mums needing an intervention. I've always wondered if part of it is that national days being about weddings, new kids, funerals are really easily relatable to people from any culture - while a national being tied to a historic event or something similar requires a bit more explaining.

Just as an aside - My middle son's name (born in 2012) is Charles, because my middle name (born in 1975) is Charles, because my dad's middle name (born in 1949) is Charles, because my very Ukrainian grandmother thought enough of the Royal Family to give him the same name as the then-baby Prince.

As an aside it is absolutely crazy seeing this stuff happen - because you get the theory of how monarchy as an institution survives etc. But seeing the announcement of the Queen's death in one paragraph then immediately saying the "King and Queen Consort" will stay at Balmoral overnight. Then today in parliament I think Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss and Keir Starmer's speeches all ended with "God save the King" - which is something that's been shouted and sung by the crowds at Buckingham Palace (including when Charles did a walkabout meeting people). It is really weird to see that they do actually do the whole "the Queen is dead, long live the King" thing.

Yeah I've been kind of fascinated by the whole process from a purely objective political basis.

I think a lot of people wondered that "sure, people love Liz, but once she passes people will rethink the monarchy".  But the process as it has evolved over centuries (I suspect very deliberately) doesn't give any room for such second thought.  The Queen is dead, Long Live the King.  Charles sends out word almost immediately that he is King and what name he will take, I understand he's proclaimed King in some official format today.  The fact that the funeral won't be held for some time, and the coronation for months and months are immaterial - Charles is King, and the "rally around the flag" sentiment is very real.

Over hear Her Majesty's death was announced in the morning, and by afternoon we received word that anything filed in superior Court should properly be addressed to the Court of King's Bench (though there will be a grace period).

[Barrister]

Of course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media. 

That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.

An indigenous person I follow on Twitter (because he posts interesting links to work by indigenous scholars and others advocating for indigenous rights) had this to say:  "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II - a blessed journey."

While that is a respectful response and one I have no issue with, I do think it's one that's primarily expressed on Twitter.

Historically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy.  Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother.  First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I've been kind of fascinated by the whole process from a purely objective political basis.

I think a lot of people wondered that "sure, people love Liz, but once she passes people will rethink the monarchy".  But the process as it has evolved over centuries (I suspect very deliberately) doesn't give any room for such second thought.  The Queen is dead, Long Live the King.  Charles sends out word almost immediately that he is King and what name he will take, I understand he's proclaimed King in some official format today.  The fact that the funeral won't be held for some time, and the coronation for months and months are immaterial - Charles is King, and the "rally around the flag" sentiment is very real.

Yeah. It's really incredible.

I think tonight all the MPs re-take their oath of allegiance to Charles. I think the Accession Council is tomorrow at St James' Palace and then he's proclaimed King in London. I don't know if this is new or if it's always been the case - but my understanding is Charles then travels to all four nations and is officially proclaimed in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.

There really is just a machine of monarchy that rolls on. As you say it just doesn't allow space or gaps.

Over hear Her Majesty's death was announced in the morning, and by afternoon we received word that anything filed in superior Court should properly be addressed to the Court of King's Bench (though there will be a grace period).

Yeah - same here. I say this morning at Old Bailey they were referring to the "King's Justices". It's really been a week for incredibly rapid British transfers of power with a new PM and a new King in the same week.

[crazy canuck]

Of course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media. 

That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.

An indigenous person I follow on Twitter (because he posts interesting links to work by indigenous scholars and others advocating for indigenous rights) had this to say:  "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II - a blessed journey."

While that is a respectful response and one I have no issue with, I do think it's one that's primarily expressed on Twitter.

Historically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy.  Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother.  First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.

That is pretty archaic language BB, and embedded with a colonial view of the world.

[Barrister]

Historically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy.  Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother.  First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.

That is pretty archaic language BB, and embedded with a colonial view of the world.

Of course it's archaic - I'm citing the 19th century.

And in my frequent dealings with indigenous people they don't use language like "colonialist".  That kind of language is more common in academic circles and Twitter.

[crazy canuck]

Historically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy.  Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother.  First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.

That is pretty archaic language BB, and embedded with a colonial view of the world.

Of course it's archaic - I'm citing the 19th century.

And in my frequent dealings with indigenous people they don't use language like "colonialist".  That kind of language is more common in academic circles and Twitter.

Well, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time.  I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother". 

[Valmy]

I guess my issue specifically with anti-monarchy feelings in Britain is that it seems kind of...irrational. Which is kind of weird considering we are talking about a very irrational institution.

But it not only serves a key part of the British Constitution but it also is a symbol of unity for the country in an era where that seems increasingly unstable. Then the monarch is head of the Commonwealth, which gives Britain a position of prestige it might not otherwise deserve. Likewise with the British monarchy being head of state to Antigua and Barbados, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. So this is an institution that seems to produce tons of benefits in the national interest with few drawbacks. It also gives the chattering classes something to waste their time on.

And replace it with what? Some figure-head president who will be some politician who will probably lack all the historical ties to Scotland and Wales and all those other countries. Not to mention there are probably a ton of unknown constitutional issues that would need to be solved. Seems like a huge cost to pay for very little gain.

So good on the monarchy, I guess, for making itself so useful.

I know the British have a rich recent history of shooting themselves in the foot and self-sabotage but creating a Republic seems so idiotic from the Bismarckian national interest perspective that I don't really get it. Why would you want to damage your nations interests for no gain? The Windsors would have to become so politically toxic that their presence is worse than their absence and despite trying hard to achieve this they seem to be in the clear from that perspective, at least for the foreseeable future.

[crazy canuck]

Seems like a huge cost to pay for very little gain.

You have perfectly summed up why we still have a monarch as our head of state in Canada - and I suspect that is the reason the rest of the Commonwealth stays the course.