Elizabeth II came to power at a time when the British Empire was still largely intact. What are your opinions on her effectiveness as a monarch regarding ensuring the best interests of her people? After all as the monarch of the British peoples, she is the embodiment of her people, and should work to ensure their best interests.
Personally I see Elizabeth II as a failure, who watched as her Empire crumbled. I will never understand a monarch who puts their own dynasty in jeopardy by embracing cross-cultural mass immigration, which only furthers to dis-empower her own people while jeopardizing the future position of her family.
I keep thinking of her visit to those injured girls after the Arianna Grande concert attack, and can't help but wonder if she understands that she was meeting victims of her own multicultural ideology.
I find Elizabeth II an enigma who we actually know very little about regarding her personal opinions on political subjects that matter. My opinion is Elizabeth II could have done more to promote solidarity between her dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand- even forming them into a union of sorts as a counter to the US-Russia power balance. I'm also disappointed at how she has focused so much on Canada, while squandering the opportunity to make Australia a regional power in Asia- instead this position has been inherited by China. And one only needs to look at the rude way the Chinese carried on during their state visit to Buckingham Palace to see the future does not bode bright for Briton, or her former dominions.
Elizabeth II, in my opinion, will be remembered as the monarch who lost the Empire, and watched as her own people became a dis-empowered minority in their own societies and in the international community. It simply boggles the mind the disparity between the position of the British as a strong world power at the time of her accession, to the shadow of former greatness they are now.
Double post auto-merged: July 28, 2017, 02:54:17 AM
Also I would be interested in hear your opinions on the way Elizabeth II watched as Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau took it upon himself to make French the language an official language on Canada, giving it equal status with English! As the monarch of this nation she should have put her foot down and had his government removed and the law amended to ensure English stayed as the only official language. Cultural homogeneity is the bedrock of a stable nation.
Hi Russophile I don't know whether you know what the role of a monarch is in a constitutional monarchy, but actually Elizabeth's role is very very limited, as the role of monarchs have been successively weakened since the reign of Queen Victoria.
If King George V could not even prevent certain powers being taken from the House of Lords in a constitutional crisis in May 1910 Elizabeth II sure as hell would not have been able to 'stop' cross-cultural mass migration into Great Britain. (I'll forbear to ask by the way exactly what you mean by that statement.)
There have been successive waves of mass migrations across Britain since the Roman conquest by Julius Caesar. Romans, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, not to mention in more recent times Huguenots then Russian and Polish refugees from the Tsar's pograms who flooded the East End of London towards the end of the 19th century.
The Queen has to sign government legislation into law. Yes, she has a duty to encourage and to warn and to be consulted, and that is virtually it, apart from a few residuary powers, which have not been used for centuries. It has been famously said that if her government decided to abolish the monarchy she would have to include that in her speech at the opening of Parliament. (She would of course fight tooth and nail behind the scenes to change the government's mind.)
What you have pointed to in migration is a result of dislocation and war in the Middle East, also as a result of Britain being in the EU and that legislation over-riding British law, ie European citizens being allowed to come into Britain.
The Queen neither formulates policy in the fashion you are suggesting nor does she have anything to do with its enactment in the Parliamentary process. She merely signs it into law. Even King George III in the 18th century would have hesitated to do what you are suggesting, and in those days things were a lot more fluid politically than they are now.
As for the Queen being able to wave a magic wand and create international power blocks in the way you are suggesting is the stuff of fantasy. She is Head of the Commonwealth, in a conciliatory and mediatory capacity, not dictator of the Commonwealth.
Australia, New Zealand and Canada are sovereign nations, in which the Queen plays no part. Governors General are her representatives but they have little power. They swear in governments and can act in a constitutional crisis in bringing two sides together, but that's all.
The Queen didn't 'lose' the Empire. The jewel in the Crown, India, got its independence years before her reign. In the 1950's and 60's there was no more political will by successive UK governments to hold on to Empire. It just couldn't be done and so, in an orderly fashion for the most part, ex colonies gained their independence and mostly stayed in the Commonwealth. If they'd been 'lost' then they wouldn't have bothered.
As an Aussie I can tell you that my country, which is a medium size regional power, would absolutely loathe being set up as a power block against huge powers like Russia and China. We just simply do not have the international muscle or wealth to do it and that goes for all three countries actually. We in Aus trade with China/Asia and have the Anzus alliance at our backs in case we're threatened and that's enough for us.
My criticism of EII is her passivity. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean being passive. We have many constitutional monarchies in Europe with even less power but one cannot accuse them of being passive. EII is an incredibly passive person, even where matters concerning her family are taking place. She just waits to follow protocol. Maybe some people like that...I don't. I prefer a monarch who is passionate and interested in people.
I don't believe the Queen has been passive in either of her roles. The article below though shows she certainly hasn't been a passive Head of the Commonwealth. And the Commonwealth has been largely her creation.
Only the Queen understands the true value of the Commonwealth - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/10539479/Only-the-Queen-understands-the-true-value-of-the-Commonwealth.html)
Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 28, 2017, 07:16:33 AM
My criticism of EII is her passivity. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean being passive. We have many constitutional monarchies in Europe with even less power but one cannot accuse them of being passive. EII is an incredibly passive person, even where matters concerning her family are taking place. She just waits to follow protocol. Maybe some people like that...I don't. I prefer a monarch who is passionate and interested in people.
that's absolute nonsense. A constiutinoal monarch does what her govt wishes. She or he has no electoral mandate to do anything.
No it is not "absolute nonsense"
@amabel. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean passivity. It has never been taken to imply that you turn up look nice and eat great dinners. That is just a republican fantasy as a precursor to raising the question: what does the monarchy do? EII' predecessors were never passive. Even her father was very active in the war effort and boosting morale in a battered nation (together with his wife).
Besides in the UK "an electoral mandate" is not always necessary to get involved in issues and even public administration. The House of Lords and the Privy Council is a clear example that you do not have to be voted in by any majority to get involved in state affairs. That is a complete misreading of the unwritten constitution of this nation.
The Monarchs of Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden for example are not passive monarchs. They talk about the things that affect their people without breaking any constitutional conventions. The queen of Denmark has spoken about the need to integrate into Danish society, issues that have been spoken about by the kings of Sweden and Norway. The King of Spain has spoken about Gibraltar. QEII just looks on and signs whatever is presented to her (at least that is what it seems to me).
Even with the commonwealth the queen has been amazingly passive. Turn out for fancy dinners, dress nice and make small talk. Meanwhile many commonwealth countries have HDI (Human Development Indices) that are shocking. That inevitably leads to economic migration. Meanwhile the queen wears a tiara and has a dinner. That is what I mean by passivity.
Queen Victoria was the reals start of a real constitutional monarchy but even in her widowhood she lent an identity to an empire. EII has overseen the decline of the nation in virtually every aspect. I do not blame her for the disastrous government policy because she does make them. I simply feel that she is detached from the problems of her people.
No I do not expect her to be a brilliant politician like Elizabeth I or to be a tyrant like Henry VIII. Neither do I expect her to be impervious to constitutional restraints like Charles I. However, I would expect her to be a passionate and concerned monarch like her current contemporaries in other European monarchies.
Elizabeth 'wears a tiara and eats a dinner', with regard to the Commonwealth? Did you read the article I provided a link to in which some of the Queen's interventions at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings were described?
Queen Elizabeth has been admired and praised by her fellow monarchs and by the politicians who have been PMs and Ministers in her reign. Even Tony Blair, no monarchist, admired her.
I suppose what you admire is someone like the POW, who wears his heart on his sleeve with regard to various causes. We are yet to see whether that sort of a monarch fits well into the British political system. He may well be told, politely but firmly, that as an unelected figurehead he should just butt out, and in fact in an era of much less deferential politicians I can clearly see that happening.
Elizabeth is not passive. According to political memoirs of various PMs and ministers they have seen very clearly where she is coming from on various issues. However, as Elizabeth is discreet, all conversations are kept private.
What is more, King George VI had a terrible war and mass bombing to bring his character to the fore in the nation's heart. If he hadn't then it's probable that his reign would have been virtually unremarked except for its coming into being as a result of the Abdication crisis.
Yes I actually do prefer someone like the POW
@Curryong . Had Charles adopted the model of his mother, there would be no Princes Trust and the Duchy of Cornwall would still be making losses (it was making losses of about $6 million a year and is now making profits of about $30 million). The organic living movement, alternative therapy and even some historical properties would have struggled to find funding. Republicans wanted him to sit back, do nothing and say nothing. I for one I am glad he refused to follow that mold.
I do give the Queen some credit on speaking out about apartheid in South Africa but in many instances, she remains silent. The points raised by
@Russophile do resonate with me in some respects.
Of course I do not know whether she raises these issues in audiences because we are not party to it. If she does then good for her.
I must say that the republicans love the QEII model because it bolsters their starting point that the monarchy is a useless archaic institution that is surplus to requirements. At other times they dismiss it as nothing more than a tourist attraction. With someone like Charles, they may find it hard to push that line. Instead they will attack him personally and try to persuade him to abdicate so that they can have another good looking figurehead that does nothing and says nothing.
Tony Blair was never a fan of the monarchy as an institution. He was a "wicked stepmum" figure...seeming to help whilst destroying. Blair was the sly and manipulative face of republicanism and I am sure the queen is well aware that he meant her no good at all. His advisers are much more candid than him...but again they also have more honesty and integrity.
Immigration is a bogeyman that has been used for the past 2 years because of the migrant crisis in Europe. People moving from developed countries to developing countries don't get a mention in this toxic debate. Economic migrants come from wealthy nations too.
Thanks for the interesting insights. I guess I got a bit carried away reading so much Russian history recently it's easy to forget that Elizabeth II has no power. However that still does not seem to stop her from making her position on politics extremely clear when she wants to, as happened with the Scottish referendum, and as occurred with this most recent example-where she wore clothes clearly demonstrating her anathema at having to announce the UK's exit from the EU during her Parliamentary speech. I guess I just don't understand her motivations in not at least broaching the subject, as having a large non-Christian population puts her position and her families future position in jeopardy- so the decision to embrace multiculturalism is not in her interests. I personally think she is loved now, but that history will judge her much more harshly. I don't think the social changes we are going through now in the Anglsphere should be looked upon lightly.
(https://s25.postimg.org/xk7xmb5of/enemyqueen.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/y9qpyo67v/)
I'm Australian. I would have preferred if Briton had decided to stay in it's position as world power, using it's brothers and sisters in Canada, Australia and New Zealand to create a version of a "British Union" that could act as a counter to America and the BRICS. I don't know about you but I think we have massive resources( we have a combined total area of 18 million square kilometers or 7 square miles- a territory larger than Russia) and could have easily set up our own nuclear ICBM weapons program and obtained autonomy from America. If little Briton can develop it's own ICBM program to keep it's autonomy from America than their is no reason why we couldn't. I just feel it was an opportunity lost. And I'm personally over being ruled by America and at the whim of China. We are a great nation and have to stop thinking of ourselves in self defeatist terms. We could have provided the world with a different more leveled political approach, compared to the crazy stuff we see America engaging in with their constant desire for waging war...America has become an unreliable ally.
Regarding immigration, I don't think there is any comparison to the huge numbers of people immigrating into former British dominions than there are emigrating to the developing world. All I am saying is I can go to my local shopping center here in Brisbane and I will always hear 3 different languages being spoken wherever I go. I just think we are setting ourselves up for a ticking time bomb of ethnic dysfunction. But it is pointless having an opinion on these things now- the irreversible damage has already been done. How the British never learned from the disaster that is Russian history simply escapes me. Or even bothered to examine why it was the British Empire broke up- it was because different peoples can not co-exist harmoniously together. Any moron studying the history of civilizations over the past 5,000 years can see the one glaring theme throughout that lead to the fall of multiple Empires is ethnic tensions. It boggles the mind people escaping conflicts around the world, the result of ethnic tensions in 90% of cases, flee to a culturally and ethnically homogeneous societies of the world- and nobody in the West stops to question why that is? The West is at a tipping point, we are in the process of being balkanized- it's only a matter of time before we become like the nations these people were escaping.
I think Elizabeth naively thought the British Empire was about bring different peoples of the world together under one flag, rather than actually realizing it was merely about Britons enriching themselves. To me it's confusing having a British monarch who is so left leaning, but I guess it explains a lot, such as why Charles will talk about the need for organic food all day, while real issues are simply swept under the carpet.
With Elizabeth I think the impression you get form her outward appearance is the complete opposite to the person inside. I used to admire Elizabeth and the royal family, but lately I have started judging them on their actions, instead of their titles, and come away feeling less than impressed. We all know they can throw their weight around when they want to, as Charles's letters to Parliament clearly demonstrate. I think it's a case of being naive and idealistic, as is always the case with us in the West.
People think the Anglosphere is on the cusp of a new golden era- they even call the reign of Elizabeth II Britons second golden era- but with all the ethnic divisions manifesting in the West today, all I see is a future completely alien to anything our ancestors experienced. I judge the success of a nation by it's capability to be high trust, low crime, and culturally homogeneous- criteria that seem lacking in any modern definition of a nations success. Maybe I am just too old fashioned and don't know what I am going on about.
Double post auto-merged: July 29, 2017, 12:04:35 AM
I guess I am saying I am frustrated by immigration- when it is clear no amount of immigration is going to save the billions of people living in poverty. You can allow millions of people in each year- that still doesn't stop billions from being in desperate need back home. You can't win with compassion. You have to at some point realize you can't save everyone, and that at some point these nations have to step up and look after their own. I don't see why Western nations that were working fine before mass immigration, have to demographically change because other nations are unwilling to take responsibility for their own people- which is all that immigration is about.
I'll never understand Elizabeth at all.
On a lighter note once I visited a friend of a friends place who lives beside government house in Sydney, and they told us they once saw Elizabeth on the balcony early one morning wearing her pajamas and looking across the harbor at the opera house, when she came for a state visit about 10 years ago.
Double post auto-merged: July 29, 2017, 12:53:10 AM
Don't get me wrong, I think Elizabeth II has been a success personally in terms of being a stable role model for her subjects. She is a beacon of integrity, morality, monogamy and tradition in a world where such things don't hold value any more. It is a shame she has not been so traditional politically. Although when one looks at all the complications in her family surrounding her children's failed marriages I can see how they let the ball down for her, and I daresay consume a lot of her time. Time that could have been put to better use in other more important areas.
I don't think children are a reflection on their parents, as you can have extremely good parents whose children end up utterly dysfunctional. Although I am disappointed her children didn't just suck it up and stay in their marriages and realize their positions as royals means they are the ones who set the social trends in society.
I think if your personal life is more important to you that you're not interested in living as a role model for your citizens then you should just renounce your claim to the throne and disengage from the royal family altogether like Edward VIII. Although Elizabeth II has been a good role model, her children have undone all that by being disastrous role models themselves. Divorces and rumors of pedophilia have tarnished the royal family for me, and I don't consider myself a prude- just someone who expects loyalty and integrity and is confused when people enter marriage so lightly.
Considering Elizabeth II inherited the throne at such a young age I do think she has done a tremendously good job relative to anything they could have achieved, as looking at the rest of her family, her reign could have been a complete disaster. Thanks for the replies, great posts everyone.
Quote
I guess I am saying I am frustrated by immigration- when it is clear no amount of immigration is going to save the billions of people living in poverty. You can allow millions of people in each year- that still doesn't stop billions from being in desperate need back home. You can't win with compassion. You have to at some point realize you can't save everyone, and that at some point these nations have to step up and look after their own. I don't see why Western nations that were working fine before mass immigration, have to demographically change because other nations are unwilling to take responsibility for their own people- which is all that immigration is about
You do know that the poor can't afford a plane ticket and then rent and all other travel expenditure involved in migration and the immigrants are all high skilled immigrants who contribute to the country.
Which 'Western nations' European countries? Eastern or Western European because they all have different cultures? Australia & NZ? The US? Canada?
Quote from: tiaras on July 29, 2017, 03:29:32 AM
You do know that the poor can't afford a plane ticket and then rent and all other travel expenditure involved in migration and the immigrants are all high skilled immigrants who contribute to the country.
Which 'Western nations' European countries? Eastern or Western European because they all have different cultures? Australia & NZ? The US? Canada?
I'm talking about the British dominions Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the UK herself. I think we could have been a power united by our shared culture and British origins under the Monarchy who defined our own destiny, instead of becoming the lap dog of NATO(America and her EU puppet) and at the whim of the BRICS. Instead of becoming a minority in my own dis-empowered country, in which 25% of people are of non-European background and have no historical ties in founding this nation built on the concept of constitutional monarchy and democracy; I could be living in a nation that is a world power on par with the NATO alliance and the BRICS alliance, and be proud of my history and my people knowing that we all shared the same history and future destiny. As it stands now I don't know what the future holds- it is always uncertain- a direct consequence of changing our demographics.
And what happens when Western nations have a situation with a high IQ immigrant elite, who are marrying each other and producing the new generation of high IQ leaders? You think that is not going to lead to a situation where the best interests of the European derived majority are lost? These people won't care one iota about the Monarchy or our historical traditions. It will be a form of colonialism inflicted on Western nations.
How can you justify the brain drain from developing nations that leaves billions in poverty in their homelands because all their high IQ people leave to live in the Anglo-sphere and the EU? How is that an ethical position to take? How can you justify corrupt elites from developing nations fleeing persecution in our nations and thereby stealing the wealth from their peoples back home?
I beg to differ that all those involved in migration are high skilled and employed. A quick trip to your local social welfare office would change your opinion on that. A large proportion of migrants who are coming here do so as refugees, and require no travel expenditure to get here.
It sounds as if you are defending immigration. I would be fascinated to know why. I get tired of defending my nations traditions and culture. If you want to give all that away for a false sense of gratification from helping people who should be helping themselves and their own nations than be my guest.
This is what I am talking about. Instead of creating a nation of people who take pride in themselves and history, Elizabeth II has watched on as her nation becomes one of people who have complete anathema for their own peoples and history and whose only desire in life is to help people from societies that are completely different to their own.
You look at the experience of the Chinese in Australia. They do not assimilate. You don't see Chinese men playing footy on a weekend at the sports grounds- it's always White Australian men. The Chinese don't have a tradition of democracy, so creating a situation where Chinese people consist of 1 in every 20 Australians is going to be suicide for our historically democratic nation. I am a champion of freedom and democracy- qualities that only arose in nations founded by peoples of British and European origins. You change the demographics and you change the culture- which will eventually lead to the loss, or at least erosion, of these historical British cultural norms.
By embracing people who have no desire to assimilate into our culture, you create the conditions for the nations failure. Maybe you should read about what Catherine II thought makes a society successful if you won't listen to a White male like me. A Forgotten Love Triangle: Voltaire, Diderot, and Catherine the Great - Cultural Weekly (https://www.culturalweekly.com/forgotten-love-triangle-voltaire-diderot-catherine-the-great/)
It doesn't matter what I say on here anyway, Elizabeth II has made her mark on our society by embracing multiculturalism, it will be people living 100 years in the future who will have to live with the consequences of her decisions who will be her judge and jury.
I'm sorry, Russophile, but a lot of your assertions on here have no foundation in fact at all (and seem to be derived from the handbook of Pauline Hanson, the frankly racist and badly educated Queensland senator and rabble rouser) and I really don't know where to start. Hanson, for non Aussies here, is anti immigration and is always going on about Aussies being swamped by Muslim refugees and others and wildly inflating the figures to justify her arguments.
There is no justification for it, as Australian born people here are still in the majority. As most people applying for citizenship have to pass a citizenship test asking questions about our traditions, government institutions and way of life I'd say more migrants know facts about these than ordinary Australian-born Aussies!
The Queen has nothing to do with refugee and migrant intake in Britain and certainly nothing to do with the rate in Australia or other realms. Even if she wanted to protest against government policy in this area it would make no difference.
In a previous post you talked about Charles sending 'letters to Parliament'. He doesn't and didn't. He writes letters to the PM and government ministers for most of the time. I don't agree that he should, but that's quite another kettle of fish.
Yes, some refugees are extremely poor, some can't speak English, some exist on pensions and benefits. That doesn't mean they will always be in that position and their children and grandchildren almost certainly won't. I work in a community centre and was speaking only the other day to a woman refugee of Afghani background. Not much English, no husband, but her eldest son and daughter are both at uni and doing very well. She hopes her other children will go too! You think they won't contribute, won't assimilate, won't take any Aussie culture or traditions on board?
As for your assertions about the Chinese in Australia, the Chinese as a group have been in Australia a long time and have assimilated into the community. It's far more than 'playing footy'. They started coming to Australia in the gold rush of the 1850s, and in spite of physical attacks and official restrictions many stayed.
Chinese were prominent in the establishing of banana crops and trade in North Queensland. There were a lot of market gardeners and store owners in NSW and Victoria (with Aussie customers.) Fishing and fish curing businesses were operated by Chinese in Melbourne and Sydney. In the 1890s censuses Chinese names crop up as scrub cutters, labourers, cooks, launderers, tobacco farmers, cabinet makers, drapers and a host of other occupations. Chines excelled at cabinet making but the various colonial governments brought in restrictions on Chinese in trades so they had to stop. You don't think any of the above interacted with their fellow Aussies?
Don't assimilate? Quong Tart was an extremely popular man who ran a very well-patronised tea house in Sydney. He was a generous philanthropist and he and his family were often in Australian newspapers. Lowe Kong Meng and Louis Ah Mouy were well known merchants.
Because of the restrictive White Australia policy after Federation the Chinese population shrank. However out of that very small base (and restrictions on non Europeans, including our Aborigines,
becoming soldiers) 198 Chinese enlisted in World War One, against the odds. Billy Sing became a famous and decorated sniper.
Because of the war in the thirties between Japan and China more Chinese came and stayed. Today, most migration from China is skilled migration and there are students here. There are Aussies of Chinese background in Federal Parliament and in State. They presumably know of Aus history and democratic traditions.
Some modern day Chinese that have contributed to the Australian community and interact with it, only a few of the hundreds I'm not posting (some of them were knighted so knew about the Queen and the monarchy) Victor Chang, well known surgeon; Cindy Pan, women's health expert; Terence Tao, mathematician; Charles Teo, neurosurgeon; John Yu, paediatrician and former Australian of the Year; Marita Cheng, founder of Robogals; Sir Leslie Hooker, founder of property firm LJ Hooker; Trevor O' Hoy, former CEO of Foster's Group (beer); Jeff Fat, Wiggles performer; Ivan Lee, Anglican Bishop. There was a RC bishop on my list too.
And how exactly do you know, Russophile, that Australian Chinese don't play footy? There are literally thousand of local footy matches and competitions that go on every week in Australia, in local comps and suburbs and country towns. Have you done a survey of all these and the bush leagues? If not then it's a wild assertion, isn't it?
I think the Queen's reign is a success.
Queen's top aide quits in dramatic shake up of Royal staff | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4743082/Queen-s-aide-quits-dramatic-shake-Royal-staff.html)
Yes, this is the Daily Fail, :D but a shake-up has been reported for some time, especially with regard to Miguel Head, Private Secretary to Will, though KP has been denying it. Also thinking of moving on is ELF, Edward Lane-Fox, Prince Harry's Private Secretary.
More surprising, I suppose, is that the Queen's Private Sec., Sir Christopher Geldt, is leaving, probably to be replaced by his female deputy. Robert Jephson in the Standard suggested yesterday that Prince Charles is likely to become Regent when the Queen reaches 95. I'd suggest that Charles may well be acting unofficially as her Regent from next year. The Queen might very well just perform her constitutional role and those duties and engagements pertaining to it, but be seen less and less doing public engagements from 2018.
It says in the DM article that Charles is feeling quite 'bruised' by his sons tribute doco to their mother which didn't mention him. The POW pays for much of the KP operation and might try to bring it under CH superintendence again, especially its Press and media dealings. He tried once before but William wasn't having it, so KP eventually got its autonomy back.
However, it may succeed this time, especially if new people are brought in at KP. Clive Alderton, Charles's Private Secretary, is much more senior in Royal service than either ELF or Head, and would certainly be above any new hands brought in. There seems to be a concerted effort here to rein KP in. Whether that will help the rivalries that are there between all the staff at KP, BP and CH remains to be seen.
Quote from: sandy on July 29, 2017, 11:45:10 AM
I think the Queen's reign is a success.
in what sense? She has no political role.. so at least she is not to blame for the many many problems of the country and the mess that it is in. However I think that she failed to an extent in terms of managing her family... though they also have some blame for that. She should have intervened bit sooner with the marital problems particularly of Charles, and insisted on an earlier divorce once they had separated.
I do agree. That divorce ought to have come much, much earlier: at least to give the parties a chance to start their new lives away from each other. The insistence on maintaining a fiction of a marriage caused undue stress and hurt to all parties concerned. It also helped to divide and polarize the nation. I have never rated QEII as a good mother at all. Sorry if I am being judgmental but I find her passivity very disturbing.
I don't think they should have divorced at all but if they were so miserable ad their estrangment and other relationships were so well known that they could not continue to do their job as partners, it was better to get a divorce. However the queen kept hoping that they'd be able to keep up some kind of marital relationship when separated.. and IMO she should have insisted on a divorce with appropriate confidentilalty agreements from Diana 2 years after the separation.
I think the Queen is a success as a monarch. I think there are two different conversations. her ability as a mother vs. her ability as a Queen. I do agree that she should have done things differently with her children. She just let problems accumulate until it reached a crisis point. I think for one thing the Queen should have heeded the warnings about CHarles being with married women and discouraged him relying on mentors like Lord Mountbatten and not marrying unless he was in love with his prospective bride. She herself did not have that sort of problem, it was a love match but her parents still told her to wait a year until she was "sure." Maybe the Queen should have told Charles to wait another year too. He could have heirs later.
Her role as a constitutional monarch is to do what the Govt wishes.. and to wok for "Team UK" by charity and other work. She does this mostly quite well. however she did also have a role as Queen which involved her being a mother... She had to prepare her family to take on the monarchy to the next generation. and IMO she didn't do that very well. Chalres and Di were a mismatch, perhaps she didn't realise that. However, I think she could have probably encouraged him to find a wife a bit sooner, before he was getting rather old to be dating a girl of 19 or 20. and I think she should certainly have refused to allow Andrew to marry Sarah...
Her father was quite ill, he had smoked a lot (his daughter Margaret did too of course) and died young. I do think Charles should have perhaps had the same scenario as William and had a long engagement and married at 30. The QUeen liked Lady Jane Wellesley but she apparently did not want to marry into the royal family. Sarah and Andrew should have had a longer engagement. Sarah had recently been living with an older man who did not want to marry her so Andrew appeared to a rebound.
what on earth has George VI or his death got to do iwht the queen's role?
and WIlliam didn't have a long engagement. he had a long courtship with Kate but that was because of changing social conditions.
Well obviously if her father had not gotten cancer or had been healthier, she may have had more time with her family for say about 20 more years. She became Queen at a very young age and had a young family. She could have been raising her children and maybe had her third and fourth children sooner and spent a lot more time with her family. It has plenty to do with it.
THe courtship was long yes. They were pretty much together except for their breakup in 2007 and some cooling off periods. But it was not as if they dated for a few months only then got engaged.
I doubt it. the queen wasn't worried about spending a lot of time with her first 2 children.. and in any case I don't see what is has to do with what she did with them as adults.
Well it has a lot to do with it. Charles may not have complained.
How has it got a lot to do iwht it? Idont know what you mean by Charles may not have complained. I thought it was well known that he DID complain that his mother had been distant and his father bullying
the last threads were what ifs. I did not say that he did not complain, hypotheticals only. see above.
Western nations aren't the only ones taking in immigrants. They're just the ones that have developed faster and thus more attractive places to live.
Why not mention china where there are American immigrants or Singapore where there are many British, American and other Asian nationals living there. I could go on the UAE has many immigrants as proportion of the population like Macao, Bahrain, Kuwait, Andorra etc.
Quote
The Australia I knew as a child is gone, that is all I will say.
Be more specific what has gone away?
I suggest you diversify you're online viewing options.
I think that the fact we are having this conversation is one of the many signs that QEII has presided over the decline of the empire. Some people celebrate that because they feel that the empire was exploitative to other races and countries. Otherwise feel it was a loss.
My question is this:
What is memorable about Elizabeth II?
What happened to those hopes of a second Elizabethan Age. We know what an Edwardian, Victorian, Hanoverian, Stuart and Tudor age was like. The queen's father and grandfather did at the very least become associated with the war effort. Even poor queen Anne has the furniture to remember her by. EII is all about platitudes, silence, detachment and almost pathological passivity. "She who says nothing" is perhaps her preferred epitaph.
I don't know. I may be very wrong. She could be a thoughtful , funny, kind and intelligent woman in private so I may be misjudging her. It is just that she does a very good job of hiding those aspects of her personality, if they exist.
One of the most important roles of a monarch is to produce (and by extension raise) an heir. We have an heir whose ascension has been long, torturous and full of unexpected tragedies as well as salacious scandals. The grandson (heir to the heir) is showing every sign of descending into a rather pathetic monarchy of unbridled press confessionals and frantic attempts "to be normal". The other brother came straight out with it saying nobody wanted to be king. The nation is divided and frightened of each other. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UK. The commonwealth is always on the verge of final detachment. The old commonwealth is riddled with poverty, disease, violence and political malpractice. What a sad legacy (even if not all of it is the fault of the queen personally).
Queen Victoria would be in tears if she realized what happened in the 110 years since she died. The empire is gone...and not to a good place.
People seem to be talking about completely unrelated things.
@royalanthropologist is talking about religion in the UK and
@Russophile is talking about Australia becoming a little China. :orchid:
Wtf
It's a constitutional monarchy the Queen doesn't write immigrantion policy. Btw the empire wasn't really taking their wealth back home they stole and plundered the colonies while majority of their countrymen were living in poverty.
They are actually related in my view
@tiaras. It is a long story but I will summarize as follows:
When Britain handed over independence to its former territories, it had no contingency plan and had deliberately failed to train the people for their new life under independence. The colonial policy had been to dismantle and ostracize all the existing political systems. That mean that there was a vacuum that was replaced by chaos. The old commonwealth is a breeding ground for dictators who would have made the late Hugo Chavez blush with their brutality and ruthlessness. That chaos means that the former empire is spilling over its more ambitious young people into the new commonwealth, Europe and North America. They are looking for jobs and better prospects. You can't blame them for wanting a better life, when it is actually the empire that taught them to be dependent.
The old empire needs trade, training and advice. State banquets and ceremonial (something QEII does very well) does nothing to deal with the underlying problems in the old empire. I know that the queen may not do much in her position but that does not mean that she must do nothing. As far as I can tell, she is the very first British monarch to completely detach from the process of formulating and directing policy responses to issues of national importance. Immigration is certainly an issue of national importance. The problem is that the debate has been overtaken by identity politics in the absence of concrete philosophical justifications for the current approach.
The Constitutional monarchy (which by the way started way, way before QEII...she is not a pioneer on that subject) had previously provided an identity for all members of the empire. Queen Victoria was a constitutional monarch but nobody can really accuse her of being passive. Her descendant QEII is the mistress of passivity, hiding behind the cloak of "constitutionalism" in order to effectively surrender any moral or legal authority the position might have retained.
The Elizabethan, Hanovarian and Stuart eras are historical terms. They weren't called that at the time, nor did the people living at that time refer to living in that particular age. Kings George V and VI had world wars to contend with. Elizabeth II, thank God, has not.
Victoria presided over the high noon of the British Empire, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with her as a person or her performance as a monarch. After Albert died she became very dependent on her ministers and Prime Ministers, and indeed by the last decade of her life was acting completely as a constitutional monarch does now.
King George V faced a political crisis at the beginning of his reign in 1910 that showed him just how much political power he had. Virtually none. If Kings George V and VI were such dominant monarchs and power houses why were they not able to stop Britain's entry into World Wars One and Two? If Victoria was so dominant on the world stage why did she not stop the Boer War with a stroke of her pen? Because the truth of the matter is that a constitutional monarch must always act on the advice of his/her governments, that's why!
You seem to think people of vivid personalities and causes they believe in can, as monarch, impose their will on the government and people they reign over. They can't, and haven't been able to since the last decades of the 19th century, (as far as Britain is concerned.)
The rate of immigration into Britain has nothing to do with Elizabeth. The end of the British Empire had nothing to do with George VI or Elizabeth. They were simply monarchs that presided over a certain time in history in which empires all over the world (not just Britain's but France's, Belgium's, Portugal's etc) were being dismantled in the decades after World War II. You think Charles is going to stop immigration into Britain or organise Britain's agricultural and health policies when he is King? Of course he isn't!
By the way Britain did not leave its former colonies 'in chaos'. In India for example, the modern Civil Services of India, the Central Superior Services of Pakistan, the Bangladesh Civil Service and the Myanmar Civil Service all descended from the old Indian Civil Service model under the Raj. What's more plenty of leaders of newly independent countries had studied at English universities, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, Nehru of India and Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, (who kept British civil servants and others at their posts for years in Kenya after independence), for instance.
Nor are Commonwealth countries 'constantly at the point of detachment'. And by the way, if Britain did so badly by them why were all these countries so anxious to join the then British Commonwealth at independence? Far from detaching in fact there is a waiting list to join. You are, I think, mixing up realms and commonwealth republics. No country has threatened to leave the Commonwealth for years.
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 04, 2017, 12:55:45 PM
I think that the fact we are having this conversation is one of the many signs that QEII has presided over the decline of the empire. Some people celebrate that because they feel that the empire was exploitative to other races and countries. Otherwise feel it was a loss.
My question is this:
What is memorable about Elizabeth II?
What happened to those hopes of a second Elizabethan Age. We know what an Edwardian, Victorian, Hanoverian, Stuart and Tudor age was like. The queen's father and grandfather did at the very least become associated with the war effort. Even poor queen Anne has the furniture to remember her by. EII is all about platitudes, silence, detachment and almost pathological passivity. "She who says nothing" is perhaps her preferred epitaph.
I don't know. I may be very wrong. She could be a thoughtful , funny, kind and intelligent woman in private so I may be misjudging her. It is just that she does a very good job of hiding those aspects of her personality, if they exist.
One of the most important roles of a monarch is to produce (and by extension raise) an heir. We have an heir whose ascension has been long, torturous and full of unexpected tragedies as well as salacious scandals. The grandson (heir to the heir) is showing every sign of descending into a rather pathetic monarchy of unbridled press confessionals and frantic attempts "to be normal". The other brother came straight out with it saying nobody wanted to be king. The nation is divided and frightened of each other. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UK. The commonwealth is always on the verge of final detachment. The old commonwealth is riddled with poverty, disease, violence and political malpractice. What a sad legacy (even if not all of it is the fault of the queen personally).
Queen Victoria would be in tears if she realized what happened in the 110 years since she died. The empire is gone...and not to a good place.
Things have changed so much since Victoria. She had a glorious reign extending to her children and grandchildren being married off into other royal houses. But it all fell apart due to revolutions and even to some of her descendants having hemophilia. So much death and sorrow. Elizabeth had little or no hope of replicating her children marrying into royal families since the numbers of these families were in decline. Charles was rumored to be considering some European Princesses but nothing came of it.
There were many really terrible events involving Victoria's immediate descendants. First tragedy for her was the premature death of her beloved ALbert and she became quite reclusive.
I think there will be many books, documentaries and films about Elizabeth and her reign in future. The Crown is a wildly popular series for example
Why what's so wonderful about Eliz II's reign. it has been over a declining Britain. She herself has had massive problems with her family (though not as many as some foreign royals perhaps)and she herself has always been careful to keep her real thougtts etc private.. so we know little of her.
I think there is supposed to be a sort of "mystique" about the monarch. I think that is what the Queen is trying to maintain. She had to give difficult speeches (like for the end of 1992, Diana's death, and so on). She rarely shows emotion. Victoria's private thoughts were never made public until her letters were published and people got to know more of what she was like (and she was very candid at times). I don't know if the Queen's correspondence will ever be made public.
yes she's tryig to maintain it and she Is naturally not IMO very interested in people. She's shy and has never really gotten over that. She does the social side of the job but it is hard for her now, I think as it was when she was a young girl. And all that means that we really know little about her and her life has been well honestly pretty quiet in spite of its grandeur. THe most dramatic things have come from outside her control, such as the whole drama of her children's marriages fialing, Charles' war with Diana etc.
I'm not going to bother responding to someone with Waity Katie as their avatar. This is a woman who on her wedding day, when it came to kissing William on the balcony, only had eyes for the crowd. You want to re-watch it.
If the monarchy survives Charles and Camilla, it won't survive Waity Katie and Woeful William, who have both shown they don't genuinely care about the position. One just needs to look at Williams sulking disposition whenever he has to make an appearance to see that. It's obvious they both don't want to be at public appearances- they always look like they can't wait to get home. I doubt either have ever thought about the future of the British ex-dominions or the UK's place as a world power in 100 years time. And yes, in 100 years time Australia and Canada won't be in the British sphere of influence any longer. I'm a similar age to William and Kate, it's not like I am talking as some nostalgic nationalist who views the next generation as bad.
Elizabeth II has presided over a decline in her civilization, and her descendants will most probably preside over it's collapse.
Get out of the diplomatic bubble of London Elizabeth, stop pandering to representatives from foreign countries, quit the artificial public appearances, and start engaging with people in your own nation without the media cameras- or risk losing it all.
Double post auto-merged: August 05, 2017, 11:33:52 PM
Quote from: royalanthropologist on August 04, 2017, 01:30:01 PM
They are actually related in my view @tiaras. It is a long story but I will summarize as follows:
When Britain handed over independence to its former territories, it had no contingency plan and had deliberately failed to train the people for their new life under independence. The colonial policy had been to dismantle and ostracize all the existing political systems. That mean that there was a vacuum that was replaced by chaos. The old commonwealth is a breeding ground for dictators who would have made the late Hugo Chavez blush with their brutality and ruthlessness. That chaos means that the former empire is spilling over its more ambitious young people into the new commonwealth, Europe and North America. They are looking for jobs and better prospects. You can't blame them for wanting a better life, when it is actually the empire that taught them to be dependent.
The old empire needs trade, training and advice. State banquets and ceremonial (something QEII does very well) does nothing to deal with the underlying problems in the old empire. I know that the queen may not do much in her position but that does not mean that she must do nothing. As far as I can tell, she is the very first British monarch to completely detach from the process of formulating and directing policy responses to issues of national importance. Immigration is certainly an issue of national importance. The problem is that the debate has been overtaken by identity politics in the absence of concrete philosophical justifications for the current approach.
The Constitutional monarchy (which by the way started way, way before QEII...she is not a pioneer on that subject) had previously provided an identity for all members of the empire. Queen Victoria was a constitutional monarch but nobody can really accuse her of being passive. Her descendant QEII is the mistress of passivity, hiding behind the cloak of "constitutionalism" in order to effectively surrender any moral or legal authority the position might have retained.
WRONG. Australia never got any help from Briton in running our government institutions and we somehow managed to survive. Remember we were founded by convicts who were sent here under the belief we would die in this harsh land. It's not the fault of the British if the people of the Commonwealth kicked them out and then only ended up creating failed states. Why is it the responsibility of the British to train people who didn't want them their in the first place? You are not making any sense. Again, you just want to blame Whitey for everything.
I don't believe for one second the peoples of the Commonwealth didn't have enough indigenous people who knew how British governmental institution ran, that they didn't know how to govern themselves. The British were the original champions of diversity after all, and would employ many local people in their Empire in the running of the government- it wasn't like only Whites ran government.
Failed states will always try and blame the West for all their problems and will always neglect to take responsibility for their own decisions. You want to research the history of Ghana under British rule and independence, or Haiti under French rule and independence.
I lived in Ghana for 2 years. And guess what? It still hasn't changed after all these years. In fact studies show as wages rise, corruption get's worse. The former Commonwealth states failures are the products of their own poor decisions- they need to take responsibility for themselves, and you need to stop making excuses for them so many years after their independence. They have had more than ample time to better themselves- yet they refuse to. It's not up to us to make everyone conform to British norms anymore. If that is how they want to run their countries, with dictatorships, then that is their business.
Double post auto-merged: August 05, 2017, 11:56:58 PM
Consider the culture in Russia of nepotism, dictatorship and lawlessness hasn't changed since the days of Catherine II- despite her trying to reform the nation along Western lines. That is why I am opposed to immigration. Because I know the culture of a country is entirely dependent on the peoples who make it up.
The British Empire simply showed you can't change non-British people and try and make them British. It doesn't work. Look at Hong Kong. It's now just another dictatorship after less than 20 years of Chinese rule- like the rest of China has been for it's entire 2,000 year history- despite being a fair and democratic society for a 150 plus years under the British. Anyway bye.
Australia certainly wasn't founded under the belief that it was a place to send convicts to die at all. At least part of the British government's decision at the time was to take advantage of the magnificent harbour at Sydney (where as one naval officer who sailed with Captain Cook exclaimed that 'a thousand ships of the line (warships) could be accommodated.
The government also believed that a flax industry (ships sails) could be established. If they had sent convicts there to die the officers who accompanied them would hardly have made huge efforts (as they did) to find men among them who were used to growing wheat and breeding sheep.
They intended to find a new place for transporting convicts out of Britain yes, but also found a new colony in the South Seas with reformed criminals being given a chance to redeem themselves and become productive members of society. I happen to think that was a magnificent hope and ultimately achievement. Australia was proud of its traditions inherited from Britain and the convict part of its history was considered shameful until the 1960s.
It is just not true that Britain never helped Australia to achieve anything. Australian colonies, which eventually became States based their political systems on the British Westminster system as did Canada and New Zealand. Most of the early members of Parliament in each colony were British migrants not ex convicts.
Australia's legal system (and Canada's and New Zealand) was based on Britain's and most of the men who founded it were British. Its civil institutions and Public Service beaurocracy was based on Britain's and were begun by Britons who had migrated.
Britain was in charge of foreign affairs/diplomatic representation as far as Australia was concerned long after Federation in 1901. Many in Australia were content for that to be so. None of the realms even bothered to sign the formal basis for independence in diplomacy/foreign affairs until 1931 when the Treaty of Westminster came into being. Australia didn't even bother to sign it until 1942, as a result of danger from Japan.
Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_Adoption_Act_1942)
I disagree with
@Russophile on the so called "blame whitey" statement. I last heard that statement from right wing radio shows in the USA. Never thought I would hear it on a forum about royalty. This is not about blaming the white man, as you put it.
It is about recognizing the fact that colonialists deliberately dismantled the administrative and social systems of the countries they conquered. They then left and continued to sabotage those countries by not allowing them to engage in free trade. It is not the local people that invited the colonialists in. It is the colonialists who came in, conquered and yes plundered (they actually did steal quite a lot). What they established were extraction administrative systems that in no way fundamentally improved the well being of the locals. Instead they set them back and left them disorganized. Does Iceland, Latvia, Finland and Poland have an immigration problem? No they don't. It might well be because those people never colonized nations and forced people to learn their language.
Let me give you an example: Europe can export its cars and medicines to Africa but places stringent restrictions on Africans exporting their produce to Europe under the Common Agricultural policy. The world bank gave loans to corrupt leaders which now the poorer nations have to pay back at exorbitant interest. They offer accounts in Switzerland for dictators to store their loot. European and American governments have installed dictators like Mobutu in Congo who have plundered the wealth of those nations. America and Britain installed a corrupt Shah on Iran leading to the revolution and all the resultant hard line politics of today. Another is the Iraq war built on lies and macho diplomacy which ended up reducing a functional economy to the debris we have today.
Those who disrupt, colonize, exploit and bomb other nations should not be surprised if the people from those nations want to go to greener pastures. It is about taking responsibility for past mistakes and finding solutions that prevent them in the future. It is about looking for global solutions to immigration such as better trade, security and human rights rather than going into the narrow parochial interests of local issues. It is about understanding the foreign aid is a corrupt system that takes money from the poor in developed countries and gives it to the rich in developing countries. It is about understanding that people who are employed, prosperous and healthy have no reason to engage in people trafficking or illegal immigration. Closing borders and building walls is not going to do it because the ingenuity of human beings is such that people do get there anyway.
I also want to correct a misconception about Australia. You speak of the country as if it only started when the convicts were sent there. There are indigenous people in Australia who continue to suffer discrimination. In any case it is ironic that descendants of immigrants complain about other potential immigrants coming it.
Quote
Those who disrupt, colonize, exploit and bomb other nations should not be surprised if the people from those nations want to go to greener pastures.
Hah good luck trying to get that through to some people.
Quote
I'm not going to bother responding to someone with Waity Katie as their avatar. This is a woman who on her wedding day, when it came to kissing William on the balcony, only had eyes for the crowd. You want to re-watch it.
Hahahahaha :lol: this is a royal forum don't be surprised the Duchess of Cambridge is my avatar. This isn't the place for politics and this whole thread should be moved into the off topic section. You brought politics up and then when confronted refuse to engage or respond.
Double post auto-merged: August 06, 2017, 01:25:58 PM
Quote from: tiaras on August 04, 2017, 12:53:54 PM
QuoteThe Australia I knew as a child is gone, that is all I will say.
Be more specific what has gone away?
I suggest you diversify you're online viewing options.
This is my post that
@Russophile refuses to respond to.. Hmmh I wonder why.
Btw there are some amazing people I enjoy listening to that accurately analyse immigration but your views are founded on disgusting biases and prejudice.
Double post auto-merged: August 06, 2017, 01:57:14 PM
QuoteLook at Hong Kong. It's now just another dictatorship after less than 20 years of Chinese rule- like the rest of China has been for it's entire 2,000 year history- despite being a fair and democratic society for a 150 plus years under the British.
Nope. Wrong again about Hong Kong. Hong Kong is one of the world's most significant financial centres, with the highest Financial Development Index score. It's also the world's 8th largest trading entity, the Hong Kong dollar, is the world's 13th most traded currency. It has an independent judiciary system and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.
Wow, im excited to hear the political debate, i have to go but will write more later, In the meantime, id advise ppl to watch Stefan Molyneux's youtube vids on IQ distribution and it will explain much of what you all are debating.
Sorry no link just google him and youll find him no worries.
QuoteI'm not going to bother responding to someone with Waity Katie as their avatar. This is a woman who on her wedding day, when it came to kissing William on the balcony, only had eyes for the crowd. You want to re-watch it.
This is a royalty forum so why is it surprising to you that someone would have the future Queen Consort of the UK as their avatar? Unless the forum rules have changed then
@tiaras is welcome to state her opinions on various topics and should not be dismissed so rudely.
Double post auto-merged: August 09, 2017, 06:40:48 PM
Quote from: amabel on July 28, 2017, 07:47:35 AM
that's absolute nonsense. A constiutinoal monarch does what her govt wishes. She or he has no electoral mandate to do anything.
Thank you for stating this fact
@amabel. QEII and her peers in Europe, Africa and Asia are certainly aware of their roles and their limitations as outlined in their respective constitutions. Those who overstep those boundaries are rightfully and swiftly reminded of their proper role by the elected members of their governments.
Just recently Belgium's Prince Laurent has been yet again been "reminded" by the government and what that gaffe will cost him. Belgian prince causes stir on visit to Chinese embassy | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4770960/Belgian-prince-causes-stir-visit-Chinese-embassy.html)
Double post auto-merged: August 09, 2017, 09:39:34 PM
QuoteNope. Wrong again about Hong Kong. Hong Kong is one of the world's most significant financial centres, with the highest Financial Development Index score. It's also the world's 8th largest trading entity, the Hong Kong dollar, is the world's 13th most traded currency. It has an independent judiciary system and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world.
(Apologies for going off topic but I agree with
@tiaras.) IMHO the Chinese have been among the most success entrepreneurs in human history and they have repeated this on every continent except Antarctica. Their flirtation with a communist economy was just a brief moment in their history.
It actually takes high IQ to see the correlations I am talking about. But don't mind me, just delete my entire Catherine II thread because it mentions Jews. And pretend you are any different to the autocrats you despise.
You don't get to go around labeling anyone who has a different opinion on immigration, as disgusting, or who wants to rationally discuss why it is forced upon us, and calling me prejudiced and biases simply for asking hard questions. I NEVER subjected YOU to such labels. You simply show your immaturity when you go around labeling others without engaging in rational discussion. You lot are like children with your fawning over these royals who are nothing but celebrities who do nothing other than look the part. You treat people like children, you deserve to be treated as children.
I couldn't care less, Elizabeth II is a failure, just as Catherine II was a failure. Catherine's failure was allowing a large minority to exist in her borders- and they eventually made sure they snuffed out her line FOREVER.
Elizabeth's lot won't last 100 years.
I don't think you understand the concept of FOREVER. Demographic reversal is PERMANENT, and FOREVER.
Why are you even on a forum about EUROPEAN royalty, if you hate your own so much?!
If Elizabeth II was a success, the majority of the UK population wouldn't be existing on poverty level income, yet you want to let in more people, and more competition? Just because it makes you feel better? You lot are insane and don't think through the long term consequences of your ideas.
Won't waste any more of my time here.
QuoteTo be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000.
The global distribution figures may seem incomprehensibly low, but consider a couple of statistics you're likely familiar with: According to the U.N., "Nearly half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, earn less than $2 a day." According to the World Bank, 95% of those living in the developing world earn less than $10 a day.
Those numbers are so shocking that you might only think about them in the abstract. But when you consider them in the context of the entire globe, including yourself, the skewing effects they have on the distribution of income is simply massive. It means that Americans we consider poor are among some of the world's most well-off. As Milanovic notes, "the poorest [5%] of Americans are better off than more than two-thirds of the world population." Furthermore, "only about 3 percent of the Indian population have incomes higher than the bottom (the very poorest) U.S. percentile."
Of course, goods and services cost different amounts in different countries. These numbers only apply to those living in the U.S. To adjust for purchasing power parity, those living in Western Europe should discount their dollar-denominated incomes by 10%-20%, Milanovic says. Those in China and Africa should increase their incomes by 2.5-fold. India, by threefold.
Attention, Protestors: You're Probably Part of the 1% -- The Motley Fool (https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/28/attention-protestors-youre-probably-part-of-the-1-.aspx)
QuoteHaving gone into the figures provided by the Office for National Statistics, if you strip out the top 10 per cent, a close approximation of the median average pay earned by the remaining 90 per cent can be found by checking the fifth decile, which was £12,872 for the financial year 2013/14. If you want to argue about £97, feel free, but I think you'll be arguing about the difference between that rough figure and the actual average.
There are other variations. For example, the article has the median average wage of the top 10 per cent at £79,196 but the ONS puts it at £82,899.
Median average earnings for the whole working population is £26,500, according to the Equality Trust, the High Pay Centre and the government, but the ONS had it at £24,564.
Median average for the bottom 10 per cent was just £1,036, according to the ONS, while the median average for the bottom 20 per cent was £5,521.
For instance, the top 0.1% are earning a few pounds over £1 million a year and the top 1% are earning an average £271,888. What this figure hides is the fact that the top FTSE chief executives are earning an average of £4.3 million and it takes them just 2.5 days to earn the average annual workers pay. These statistics do not include other successful groups such as self employed entrepreneurs.
The top 10% of UK workers earn £79,196. But the truth here is that this also includes the earnings of the top 1%, meaning the next 9% don't really earn that figure.
What is grotesque is the next number that should shock everyone. The average pay of the next 90%, (by stripping out all earnings of the top 10%, including the 1% and 0.1% groups) leaves an annual income of just £12,969. Yes, you read that right. Stripping out the top 10% of average pay, leaves just £12,969 average pay for the remaining 90% of the population.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/01/23/average-wages-for-90-per-cent-of-british-workers-are-less-than-half-what-youve-been-told/
QuoteAmerica IS the 1%: You need just $34,000 annual income to be in the global elite... and HALF the world's richest people live in the U.S.
We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html)
I am sick and tired of politics tbh. I don't like the left or the right and I feel social media is filled with these anti insert buzzword and other ideologues on both sides. Which is why I escape to this forum and have stopped getting involved in these discussions since the election. This is a royal forum. There will be fawning and discussion of royalty. European royalty exists mostly in the constitutional monarchy format so they don't write or influence policy or even vote. This separation is important and explains why people can't make any sense of what your blaming EII for.
I'm frankly done with this discussion as well.
Success.
QuoteI don't like the left or the right and I feel social media is filled with these anti insert buzzword and other ideologues on both sides
:goodpost:
@tiarasAfter the events of this summer I especially feel that extremists on the left and the right are fueling discord throughout my country and the world and I fear that those of us in the middle who want to discuss issues and topics rationally are being shouted down.
Failure.