QE DTS
- Thread starter burndoc
- Start date
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
She's from LA, toxic narcissism is their culture.
Point Break
Super Anarchist
Best description I’ve ever heard.
hobot
Super Anarchist
.
NaptimeAgain
Super Anarchist
We elect our half-wits, which probably makes us quarter-wits. 
We have our own awkward colonizing history but we don't own up to it. Lots of Pacific islands and most of the American west that we have happened to conquer and control over the years. I would have traded her for at least a few of our recent presidents.
We have our own awkward colonizing history but we don't own up to it. Lots of Pacific islands and most of the American west that we have happened to conquer and control over the years. I would have traded her for at least a few of our recent presidents.
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
Just looking at recent years I'd say completely witless would be closer.We elect our half-wits, which probably makes us quarter-wits.
The difference is that the US voting population makes a choice at the polls. Sometimes they get it right, often they don't. But at least there is a choice, not a bunch of people that assume great wealth, power and prestige by virtue of a blood lines that have been bred so thin it's hard to believe they still produce viable children with only one head and all of their limbs. The Brits have inherited the royals, short of an uprising they have no choice in the matter.
@SloopJonB Hey, you've got no room to talk, you've got Justin Bieber! (PB made me say that.)
Last edited:
LB 15
Cunt
She was a bonzer Sheila Bruce, and not a big stuck up. A fine innings. RIP Queen Liz.
Investigated this all alleged racism by the Elizabeth II, since I read the major newpapers since the late-60s and hadn't read once about any aleged racism by the Queen. I found nothing but support, no matter race, creed or color since her youth and was public about it at a young age.
"On her twenty-first birthday, 21 April 1947, Princess Elizabeth was with her parents and younger sister on a tour of South Africa. In a speech broadcast on the radio from Cape Town, the Princess dedicated her life to the service of the Commonwealth."
She went on to declare that she would devote her whole life “to the service of our great imperial family.”
By the time she died at Balmoral as Queen Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022, the Empire had vanished.
Britain’s process of quitting Empire had begun before she ascended the throne (when she was holidaying in Kenya in June 1952) with Britain’s withdrawal from India and Burma in 1947. This had been heralded by the demands of the Indian National Congress throughout the previous half-century.
Even after India’s departure from the Empire, it was widely assumed that Britain would stay on in Africa for many decades. But how quickly things changed. Riots in the Gold Coast in 1948 led swiftly to the appointment of Kwame Nkrumah as Chief Minister and the introduction of self-government.
Within the space of just a few years, the Gold Coast became independent as Ghana in 1957. The process of colonial withdrawal from Africa had begun, hastened by the political and economic cost of Britain’s bloody suppression of Mau-Mau in Kenya in the early and mid 1950s.
British prime minister Harold Macmillan was to acknowledge that a historic and unstoppable shift was taking place when he delivered his famous “winds of change” speech to the South African parliament in 1960.
The decade and a half that followed saw one African country after another proceeding to independence. Most experienced a brief period when they retained the queen as head of state. Yet it was not long before they abandoned even this colonial relic, opting instead for executive presidents to lead them into the future.
The queen’s private thoughts about all this will remain obscure until the release of royal archives in years to come. Yet the outward signs are that she adjusted personally and as monarch to these immense changes with aplomb and good grace. As far as Africa was concerned, she was no reactionary.
Her personal relationships with many African leaders were an important marker of the social and attitudinal changes which accompanied the shift from Empire to Commonwealth. One indicator was her famous dance with Kwame Nkrumah when she visited Ghana in 1961.
At the time, Nkrumah was developing his personality cult, and seemingly moving Ghana into the orbit of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The British government saw her visit as a way of strengthening the former colony’s ties to the Commonwealth.
In The Crown, the recent Netflix series on the monarchy during her reign, the incident of her dancing with Nkrumah is presented as having major political implications, as if on the dance floor her embrace of the Ghanaian president was key to holding him within the political grip of Britain.
Historians dismiss this as rubbish. Yet this does not mean that the dance was without its wider significance.
Back in 1948, the British government had sought to stand in the way of the marriage of Seretse Khama, then a student in Britain, to a white British woman, Ruth Williams.
Establishment horror of inter-racial marriage was backed by a visceral fear of offending South Africa, where the white electorate had backed the election of a National Party government and opted for a program of greater racial separation and apartheid.
Yet by 1961, the queen was visibly demonstrating that such blatant racism was no longer acceptable, and that she did not shrink from the close touch of black on white skin.
Politicians came and went during the queen’s long reign, but she remained a constant as head of the Commonwealth. Its foundations rested on the British government’s grant of self-rule to the white “dominions”, confirmed with the passage of the Statute of Westminister in 1931.
Yet it was not until the period after the second world war that there was any thought in London that black Africans were capable of running their own governments. However, once the British had decided that Africans could stand on their own feet (a convenient realisation which coincided with British self-interest), African governments were invited to join the Commonwealth, which had expanded to include India and Pakistan in 1947.
It is widely acknowledged that Queen Elizabeth played an important role in holding what was (and remains) a highly disparate organisation together through many disputes.
The most important differences revolved around the issue of race, or more specifically, the continuance of white rule in the southern part of the African continent.
Here the queen’s warm personal relations with key leaders, notably Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, served to contain African states’ differences with Britain over its policies towards Ian Smith’s Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa.
What accounts there are suggest that she was quietly supportive of the pressure which African Commonwealth leaders exerted on Margaret Thatcher to maintain sanctions on South Africa during the crises of apartheid in the later 1980s.
Indeed, it is thought that Thatcher was perhaps her least favourite among the 14 British prime ministers who served under her.
Subsequently, there is every evidence that she delighted in meeting Nelson Mandela, the one political leader who ignored royal protocol by simply greeting her by her Christian name whenever he met her, and she took no offence. But then Nelson Mandela was as monarchical as Queen Elizabeth herself.
Queen Elizabeth’s background role in keeping the Commonwealth together during many fractious disputes about race raises the question about what will happen to the body now that she has gone.
Many observers argue that the Commonwealth is increasingly a political irrelevance in a constantly changing world. Furthermore, there is talk that if it continues to exist, the British monarch should not necessarily stay on as its head, and that the post should rotate among the membership. Meanwhile, it is likely that some countries that have retained the monarch as head of state will dissolve their formal relationship with the British crown.
Despite such currents, the Commonwealth seems destined to stay for the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is becoming even more inclusive, having been recently joined by states such as Mozambique and Rwanda which were never ruled by Britain as part of the Empire. They are doing this because they see advantage to themselves in terms of trade, aid and investment.
It remains to be seen whether King Charles III can emulate his mother in helping to keep the Commonwealth together. Yet the signs are there that he holds views that are more progressive, notably on tackling climate change, than the wearying succession of Conservative governments which are ruling contemporary Britain.
As for the comments about racism generated by the Oprah interview. Oprah stated afterward, "the skin color statement wasn't said by the Queen or the Duke. Oprah asked the prince if the couple left the UK because of racism. Prince Harry replied: "It was a large part of it."
He said that shortly after the couple announced they would step back from royal duties, someone who was "friends with a lot of the editors" had warned him about their confrontational stance with the press: "Please don't do this with the media, they will destroy your life."
The friend of the editors told him: "You need to understand that the UK is very bigoted." But the duke responded: "The UK is not bigoted, the UK press is bigoted, specifically the tabloids."
Speaking to Oprah, the prince added: "But, unfortunately, if the source of information is inherently corrupt or racist or biased then that filters out to the rest of society."
He said that "sadly" no-one in the family had said they were sorry that the couple felt they had to move away from royal life because they did not feel supported.
"The feeling is that this was our decision, therefore the consequences are on us."
He said it was "really hard because I am part of the system with them, I always have been".
Prince Harry said he is "very aware" that his brother Prince William "can't leave that system but I have".
Asked if William wanted to leave the system, he replied: "I don't know, I can't speak for him."
Harry said the "relationship and that control and the fear by the UK tabloids, it's a really, it's a toxic environment".
The duke said he will "always be there" for his brother and the rest of his family and he has "tried to help them to see what has happened".
His father, the Prince of Wales, "had to make peace" with the relationship with the media.
But Meghan said she and the duke could not make peace with it themselves, saying it was "different" because of social media, describing it as "like the wild, wild West".
The Society of Editors criticised the couple for accusing the media of racism without "any supporting evidence".
"The UK media has never shied away from holding a spotlight up to those in positions of power, celebrity or influence. If sometimes the questions asked are awkward and embarrassing, then so be it, but the press is most certainly not racist," said executive director Ian Murray.
So it appears this whole racism issue is a British Tabloid Media thang, which most don't even read.
"On her twenty-first birthday, 21 April 1947, Princess Elizabeth was with her parents and younger sister on a tour of South Africa. In a speech broadcast on the radio from Cape Town, the Princess dedicated her life to the service of the Commonwealth."
She went on to declare that she would devote her whole life “to the service of our great imperial family.”
By the time she died at Balmoral as Queen Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022, the Empire had vanished.
Britain’s process of quitting Empire had begun before she ascended the throne (when she was holidaying in Kenya in June 1952) with Britain’s withdrawal from India and Burma in 1947. This had been heralded by the demands of the Indian National Congress throughout the previous half-century.
Even after India’s departure from the Empire, it was widely assumed that Britain would stay on in Africa for many decades. But how quickly things changed. Riots in the Gold Coast in 1948 led swiftly to the appointment of Kwame Nkrumah as Chief Minister and the introduction of self-government.
Within the space of just a few years, the Gold Coast became independent as Ghana in 1957. The process of colonial withdrawal from Africa had begun, hastened by the political and economic cost of Britain’s bloody suppression of Mau-Mau in Kenya in the early and mid 1950s.
British prime minister Harold Macmillan was to acknowledge that a historic and unstoppable shift was taking place when he delivered his famous “winds of change” speech to the South African parliament in 1960.
The decade and a half that followed saw one African country after another proceeding to independence. Most experienced a brief period when they retained the queen as head of state. Yet it was not long before they abandoned even this colonial relic, opting instead for executive presidents to lead them into the future.
The queen’s private thoughts about all this will remain obscure until the release of royal archives in years to come. Yet the outward signs are that she adjusted personally and as monarch to these immense changes with aplomb and good grace. As far as Africa was concerned, she was no reactionary.
Her personal relationships with many African leaders were an important marker of the social and attitudinal changes which accompanied the shift from Empire to Commonwealth. One indicator was her famous dance with Kwame Nkrumah when she visited Ghana in 1961.
At the time, Nkrumah was developing his personality cult, and seemingly moving Ghana into the orbit of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The British government saw her visit as a way of strengthening the former colony’s ties to the Commonwealth.
In The Crown, the recent Netflix series on the monarchy during her reign, the incident of her dancing with Nkrumah is presented as having major political implications, as if on the dance floor her embrace of the Ghanaian president was key to holding him within the political grip of Britain.
Historians dismiss this as rubbish. Yet this does not mean that the dance was without its wider significance.
Back in 1948, the British government had sought to stand in the way of the marriage of Seretse Khama, then a student in Britain, to a white British woman, Ruth Williams.
Establishment horror of inter-racial marriage was backed by a visceral fear of offending South Africa, where the white electorate had backed the election of a National Party government and opted for a program of greater racial separation and apartheid.
Yet by 1961, the queen was visibly demonstrating that such blatant racism was no longer acceptable, and that she did not shrink from the close touch of black on white skin.
Politicians came and went during the queen’s long reign, but she remained a constant as head of the Commonwealth. Its foundations rested on the British government’s grant of self-rule to the white “dominions”, confirmed with the passage of the Statute of Westminister in 1931.
Yet it was not until the period after the second world war that there was any thought in London that black Africans were capable of running their own governments. However, once the British had decided that Africans could stand on their own feet (a convenient realisation which coincided with British self-interest), African governments were invited to join the Commonwealth, which had expanded to include India and Pakistan in 1947.
It is widely acknowledged that Queen Elizabeth played an important role in holding what was (and remains) a highly disparate organisation together through many disputes.
The most important differences revolved around the issue of race, or more specifically, the continuance of white rule in the southern part of the African continent.
Here the queen’s warm personal relations with key leaders, notably Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, served to contain African states’ differences with Britain over its policies towards Ian Smith’s Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa.
What accounts there are suggest that she was quietly supportive of the pressure which African Commonwealth leaders exerted on Margaret Thatcher to maintain sanctions on South Africa during the crises of apartheid in the later 1980s.
Indeed, it is thought that Thatcher was perhaps her least favourite among the 14 British prime ministers who served under her.
Subsequently, there is every evidence that she delighted in meeting Nelson Mandela, the one political leader who ignored royal protocol by simply greeting her by her Christian name whenever he met her, and she took no offence. But then Nelson Mandela was as monarchical as Queen Elizabeth herself.
Queen Elizabeth’s background role in keeping the Commonwealth together during many fractious disputes about race raises the question about what will happen to the body now that she has gone.
Many observers argue that the Commonwealth is increasingly a political irrelevance in a constantly changing world. Furthermore, there is talk that if it continues to exist, the British monarch should not necessarily stay on as its head, and that the post should rotate among the membership. Meanwhile, it is likely that some countries that have retained the monarch as head of state will dissolve their formal relationship with the British crown.
Despite such currents, the Commonwealth seems destined to stay for the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is becoming even more inclusive, having been recently joined by states such as Mozambique and Rwanda which were never ruled by Britain as part of the Empire. They are doing this because they see advantage to themselves in terms of trade, aid and investment.
It remains to be seen whether King Charles III can emulate his mother in helping to keep the Commonwealth together. Yet the signs are there that he holds views that are more progressive, notably on tackling climate change, than the wearying succession of Conservative governments which are ruling contemporary Britain.
As for the comments about racism generated by the Oprah interview. Oprah stated afterward, "the skin color statement wasn't said by the Queen or the Duke. Oprah asked the prince if the couple left the UK because of racism. Prince Harry replied: "It was a large part of it."
He said that shortly after the couple announced they would step back from royal duties, someone who was "friends with a lot of the editors" had warned him about their confrontational stance with the press: "Please don't do this with the media, they will destroy your life."
The friend of the editors told him: "You need to understand that the UK is very bigoted." But the duke responded: "The UK is not bigoted, the UK press is bigoted, specifically the tabloids."
Speaking to Oprah, the prince added: "But, unfortunately, if the source of information is inherently corrupt or racist or biased then that filters out to the rest of society."
He said that "sadly" no-one in the family had said they were sorry that the couple felt they had to move away from royal life because they did not feel supported.
"The feeling is that this was our decision, therefore the consequences are on us."
He said it was "really hard because I am part of the system with them, I always have been".
Prince Harry said he is "very aware" that his brother Prince William "can't leave that system but I have".
Asked if William wanted to leave the system, he replied: "I don't know, I can't speak for him."
Harry said the "relationship and that control and the fear by the UK tabloids, it's a really, it's a toxic environment".
The duke said he will "always be there" for his brother and the rest of his family and he has "tried to help them to see what has happened".
His father, the Prince of Wales, "had to make peace" with the relationship with the media.
But Meghan said she and the duke could not make peace with it themselves, saying it was "different" because of social media, describing it as "like the wild, wild West".
The Society of Editors criticised the couple for accusing the media of racism without "any supporting evidence".
"The UK media has never shied away from holding a spotlight up to those in positions of power, celebrity or influence. If sometimes the questions asked are awkward and embarrassing, then so be it, but the press is most certainly not racist," said executive director Ian Murray.
So it appears this whole racism issue is a British Tabloid Media thang, which most don't even read.
Last edited:
Bored Stiff
Member
But being born to it means they don’t have to lie, cheat, bribe, steal or blackmail their way into power. As such, they can be far less corrupt and populist than a presidential system.
veni vidi vici
Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
- 5,734
- 1,231
.
Yes, you have every right to be a jerk. I just hope he has to live with the consequences.
Sorry, Edward did not divorce.
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
He was only born here - Americans made him what he is.
SloopJonB
Super Anarchist
I daresay the majority of Brits read the gutter press - why do you think there are so many gutter papers?
The Main Man
Super Anarchist
Probably true. Can’t stand it myself and refuse to read that shit.
veni vidi vici
Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
- 5,734
- 1,231
.
They the Brits, most likely do.
I can't say the sailors I sailed with and former workmates would consider reading those junk tabloids.
However I was surprised when traveling cross country how many pick up a tabloid along with their WSJ and the New York Times for a flight. I've even asked what they found of interest in the tabloids, and most said they found it entertaining, but I doubt very many executives and corporate types, took what they read in the tabloids seriously.
LB 15
Cunt
Fah Kiew Tu
Curmudgeon, First Rank
Poor attempt to change the topic there.
I take it that you concede dfw's point WRT the ex-British colonies standard of living vis-a vis the USA.
FWIW few Aussies are Monarchists (capital M types) but we're cynics - better the (far away and ineffectual) monarch that has no power than a President like Trump.
You don't seem to realise that in many, many areas in the 21C - you guys are the exemplars of what NOT to do when it comes to social harmony and civil society.
Oh - and as an afterthought - why don't you try asking your Native Americans what it feels like to be colonised and dispossessed of their land by a bunch of genocidal racists?
FKT
Last edited:
