zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
I realise she has just died and it's unbecoming to do anything but laud the person, but this is just moral obsequiousness.

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.

>>Emma_G+wd
She and her family is responsible for a lot of atrocities around the world. Yet a lot of people here are eulogizing as if she was a saint who taught art of living to the people.

To me this is a demonstration of power of conditioning and media management.

>>driedd+Qi
Can you describe what they did, personally, that makes them responsible for atrocities? Yes I know she was head of state, but she had no significant executive or legislative power. I don't see how she's responsible in a practical sense for such things any more than any British citizen.

>>simonh+Tn
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...

>>dmonit+Rp
Posting bare links is rarely helpful.

> In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

A wise move indeed, if Blair's record is to be taken into account.