zlacker

[return to "Queen Elizabeth II has died"]
1. kypro+Ph[view] [source] 2022-09-08 18:34:03
>>xd+(OP)
As a Brit I'm not a huge fan of the royal family on principle, but Queen Elizabeth has been such an excellent head of state for us you really can't fault her.

People like to make out her life was easy and that it's not fair that she inherited such a privileged position, but I think the exact opposite. Her life seemed like living hell to me. Every day for the last 70 years she's had to serve this largely ungrateful country, and she did so without complaint. Even in her 90s she took her duties extremely seriously, and I respect the hell out of her for that.

It was only a couple of days ago she invited our new PM to Balmoral Castle to form a government. She was clearly looking weak and it's been no secret that she's been struggling to fulfil her duties as Queen for a while, but even just two days before her death at the age of 96 she put on the performance that was expected of her. And she did this practically every day of her life.

RIP. I doubt anyone will ever live up to her legacy. Despite all the problems I have with the royal family, I couldn't feel more pride that she was our Queen.

◧◩
2. gnulin+Yy[view] [source] 2022-09-08 19:43:34
>>kypro+Ph
> People like to make out her life was easy and that it's not fair that she inherited such a privileged position, but I think the exact opposite. Her life seemed like living hell to me. Every day for the last 70 years she's had to serve this largely ungrateful country, and she did so without complaint. Even in her 90s she took her duties extremely seriously, and I respect the hell out of her for that.

She wasn't doing it from the kindness of her heart. This was her job, she was obscenely rich off of taxpayer money and she could retire any second she wanted to. You make it sound like she was sentenced to sign paperwork for her entire life, when the reality is she consciously chose to do so every day and in exchange she and her family was granted an immense wealth. It's not even remotely something that would warrant complaint. I'm not saying this to be snarky, just pointing out that although maybe parts of her job was boring, stressful, and unfulfilling, this is what she signed up for. And her "compensation" was unimaginable amount of money and power in the form of interpersonal relations.

◧◩◪
3. Veen+uL[view] [source] 2022-09-08 20:39:39
>>gnulin+Yy
> You make it sound like she was sentenced to sign paperwork for her entire life, when the reality is she consciously chose to do so every day

They are not popular concepts these days, but the ideas you're grasping for are duty and service. She did her duty and she served her people.

Also, the Royal Family is not in receipt of taxpayer money. The Sovereign Grant is funded from income generated by the Crown Estate.

◧◩◪◨
4. _alxk+NM[view] [source] 2022-09-08 20:46:46
>>Veen+uL
The Crown Estate is not the private property of the Windsor family though. It is more akin to the wealth of a parallel state. One could speculate that in the event of the abolition of the monarchy the Crown Estate would be taken over by the government (at the very least not become Windsor family private property), in effect making it the taxpayers' property.

I think it's totally fair to feel that they have a life of immense luxury and privilege off of wealth that belongs to the people, while so many people in this country are wondering if they'll have heating this winter.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. highwa+xO[view] [source] 2022-09-08 20:55:42
>>_alxk+NM
Again this is something I assume that must have been very frustrating too. She couldn’t just say “that’s not right” and intervene because that’s not within her remit in a democratic system.

I can’t begin to imagine how many times she must have had to bite her tongue over the last 73 years.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. _alxk+AR[view] [source] 2022-09-08 21:12:48
>>highwa+xO
No, they actively lobbied over the years of her reign to preserve their economic benefits. They enjoyed this luxury and made attempts at preserving and expending it. Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. noodle+FX[view] [source] 2022-09-08 21:50:18
>>_alxk+AR
>Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.

It's so strange that this even needs to be said out loud. It's not edgy to say that someone born into her position has benefitted from it. For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. highwa+VT1[view] [source] 2022-09-09 06:58:59
>>noodle+FX
Not sure who this needed to be said out loud to.

It’s not edgy to explain something everyone already knows. The royal family benefits from the taxation of UK citizens.

“For a place that claims to be a meritocracy, the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”

Are you.. States-splaining.. to me right now?

“Elizabeth was not a passive victim of her birth circumstances.. the UK has some strangely dissonant beliefs”.

I don’t know if you’re from the US or not, but if so this is the most ironically hypocritical thing I’ve ever read.

[go to top]