QUEEN ELIZABETH 1926 - 2022 - Prince Charles becomes King of the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 👑

MikelArteta

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
249,376
Reputation
30,853
Daps
762,648
Reppin
Top 4
I hope Charles has his COVID booster.

:picard:

All up in people’s faces with no masks

:huhldup:

im watching bbc
dude is shaking everyones hand. Even saw a bunch of black folks out there grinning like a cheshire cat.


dude prob gonna sanitize and burn his suit after this :heh:
 

Baka's Weird Case

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
15,815
Reputation
6,871
Daps
77,237
Reppin
Goon Squad - Catset

three days of mourning? Lebanon was not even a British colony. country is being governed by the law of the jungle right now but Mikati has time to so shyt like this :stopitslime:
 

MikelArteta

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
249,376
Reputation
30,853
Daps
762,648
Reppin
Top 4

invalid

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
19,972
Reputation
6,797
Daps
80,752
she could act though.

What does this mean she can act? Act on what?
She was essentially a living mannequin that was the symbol of British power.

how about comments/behaviour on race?

harry spoke out about racism against meghan. the queen said nothing about the same issues.

The queen said nothing publicly on ALL of the issues.
She publicly said nothing around the controversy of her uncle, the former king, ties to the Nazis.
She publicly said nothing about her sons (Charles, Edward, and Andrews) infidelity issues while also being the ceremonial head of the Church.
She publicly said nothing about Andrew's pedophilia controversy.

All of these issues, including the racism, hurts the public image of her family.
She knew this, and yet, she still couldn't say anything about it publicly.

The one thing that she was FORCED to speak on was Princess Diana's death.
And that's because people were finna revolt.

the queen ran a racist employment policy until .. well we don't know it it even has stopped yet

"The Queen’s courtiers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s, according to newly discovered documents that will reignite the debate over the British royal family and race.

You say the "Queen ran a racist employment policy.." and then the example that you give is the "Queen's courtiers".
So you haven't specifically provided any instances that the Queen was party to?
The monarchy is an institution. The institution runs the Crown. Not the other way around.

the queen sat at the head of a family and societal totem pole that lived by notions of a hierarchy in genetic inheritance. in particular that meant marrying blue (white) blood and said nothing.

if anything in word and deed the queen's household supported notions of class hierarchy, superior breeding and accents and immutable indelible genetic attributes.

I don't disagree with any of this. This is point of all aristocracy/nobles/royals the world over. Including in Africa.

the queen was married to a man who said several questionable things about race over decades and never once corrected matters in public.

This is true. And she said nothing in public like all the other negative things that were publicly shameful for her family.

Look, I'm not trying to be on the side of defending the goddamn Queen of England.
And since it appears you're a black breh in England, I have no business policing your anger.

I can understand if black folks were like, because she chose the life of being the visible representative of british power (colonial or otherwise), she gone get this work, because representatives have to take the heat. That's part of their role.

But to act like she personally made decisions when the power is in the hands of the PM and Parliament is goofy.
To act like she was supposed to be some liberal leader when she was the most privileged white woman on earth born in the 1920's is goofy.
To act like she was supposed to speak out on social issues when she hadn't even spoke out on controversies within her own family is also goofy.
 

null

...
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
29,228
Reputation
4,894
Daps
46,444
Reppin
UK, DE, GY, DMV
.
What does this mean she can act? Act on what?
She was essentially a living mannequin that was the symbol of British power.

i'll start with the first one.
like harry acted.
like in the example i gave of harry acting.
by using harry as an example I was indicating what I meant.
yeah she could have acted .. like harry
"acted" like harry "acted".

TL;DR. dunno. possibly like harry did.
 

invalid

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
19,972
Reputation
6,797
Daps
80,752
.


i'll start with the first one.
like harry acted.
like in the example i gave of harry acting.
by using harry as an example I was indicating what I meant.
yeah she could have acted .. like harry
"acted" like harry "acted".

And like the examples you provided before, this is a bad example.
Harry is not the monarch. Harry was never going to be the monarch.
Harry was not restricted in the way that his grandmother was.

Next example.
 

null

...
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
29,228
Reputation
4,894
Daps
46,444
Reppin
UK, DE, GY, DMV
And like the examples you provided before, this is a bad example.
Harry is not the monarch. Harry was never going to be the monarch.
Harry was not restricted in the way that his grandmother was.

Next example.

nope. babble notwithstanding we are still on point 1.

the royal convention that underpins your argument was and is NOT limited to the monarch.
so rid yourself of that false miconception and you will see that what applies to her in this case applies to harry too.

additionally it is only a convention and the case was only obliquely political (as meghan/harry is a family matter) so the convention could be easily bent or broken, just as harry did.

so yeah she could have done what harry did.
but then again CACWAs don't need to be founded in logic :hubie:
 

invalid

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
19,972
Reputation
6,797
Daps
80,752
nope. babble notwithstanding we are still on point 1.

the royal convention that underpins your argument was and is NOT limited to the monarch.
so rid yourself of that false miconception and you will see that what applies to her in this case applies to harry too.

additionally it is only a convention and the case was only obliquely political (as meghan/harry is a family matter) so the convention could be easily bent or broken, just as harry did.

so yeah she could have done what harry did.
but then again CACWAs don't need to be founded in logic :hubie:

He did all of this AFTER he stepped down as a public royal. :why:
You wanted her to step down as monarch to publicly make a statement about people being mean to Meghan?
This is what you mean by "she could act"?
Jesus Christ.
 
Top