She claims fealty by right of blood, reigned as the crown of an extraordinarily cruel empire, and frequently interceded in the democratic government of Britain to protect her private interests.
Queen Elizabeth presided over its dismantlement. No famines occurred during her reign and no rebellions violently suppressed.
The Empire was cruel, but it's unfair to wash her with the cloth of empire.
When you say "extraordinarily cruel" then maybe you refer to the 2,100,000 to 3,800,000 Bengals you starved to death
The murder of 13 people (the inciting incident of the troubles) by the British army is not exactly comparable; even taking into consideration the total losses during that time of 3,500~, hardly comparable at all.
Let alone all of the Unionists are staunch monarchists and were tightly linked to government institutions.
I wasn't comparing anything to anything. You think that comparing The Troubles to bengal Famine, somehow excuses you from writing an obvious false sentence.
PS: Civil Unrest isn't Civil Unrest, when the army is literally shooting.