Author Topic: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?  (Read 2082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,493
  • Activity:
    56%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2017, 10:48:19 AM »
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
 


Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,175
  • Activity:
    94%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2017, 04:50:25 PM »
the last threads were what ifs. I did not say that he did not complain, hypotheticals only. see above.
 
 

Offline tiaras

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,438
  • Activity:
    4%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2017, 06:53:54 PM »
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.
 


Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Activity:
    30%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2017, 06:55:45 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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline tiaras

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,438
  • Activity:
    4%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2017, 07:11:04 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 07:13:39 PM by tiaras »
 

Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Activity:
    30%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2017, 07:30:01 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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,199
  • Activity:
    72%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2017, 10:09:16 PM »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: tiaras


Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,175
  • Activity:
    94%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2017, 01:18:59 AM »
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
 
 

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,493
  • Activity:
    56%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2017, 01:21:22 AM »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Duch_Luver_4ever

Offline sandy

  • RIF Veteran
  • Forum Royalty
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,175
  • Activity:
    94%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2017, 04:04:13 AM »
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.
 
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Offline amabel

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,493
  • Activity:
    56%
    • Favorite royal: Anne Boleyn
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2017, 01:06:13 PM »
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.
 

Offline Russophile

  • Loyal Subject
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Favorite royal: Catherine II of course!
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2017, 05:11:32 AM »
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 06, 2017, 05:33:52 AM

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 06, 2017, 05:56:58 AM

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.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2017, 05:56:58 AM by Russophile »
 

Offline Curryong

  • Forum Nobility
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,199
  • Activity:
    72%
    • Favorite royal: The Queen and Prince Harry
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2017, 09:42:15 AM »
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
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK


Online royalanthropologist

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,354
  • Activity:
    30%
  • Fair and Balanced...to an extent
    • Favorite royal: Camilla Shand, Duchess of Cornwall
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2017, 11:13:43 AM »
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.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace
 
The following users thanked this post: FanDianaFancy

Offline tiaras

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,438
  • Activity:
    4%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2017, 07:21:15 PM »
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, 07:25:58 PM

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.

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, 07:57:14 PM


Quote
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.
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.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2017, 07:57:14 PM by tiaras »
 
The following users thanked this post: Curryong, Duch_Luver_4ever

Offline Duch_Luver_4ever

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Activity:
    34%
    • Favorite royal: Diana, Princess of Wales
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2017, 11:35:25 PM »
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.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.
 

Offline TLLK

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,637
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Gal power!!!!!!
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2017, 12:36:08 AM »
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.

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 10, 2017, 12:40:48 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

Double post auto-merged: August 10, 2017, 03:39:34 AM

 
Quote
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.

 (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.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 03:39:34 AM by TLLK »
 
The following users thanked this post: Curryong, tiaras, Duch_Luver_4ever

Offline Russophile

  • Loyal Subject
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Activity:
    0%
    • Favorite royal: Catherine II of course!
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2017, 11:30:59 AM »
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.

Quote
To 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

Quote
Having 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 youíll 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% donít 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/

Quote
America 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
 
The following users thanked this post: Duch_Luver_4ever

Offline tiaras

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,438
  • Activity:
    4%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2017, 11:36:02 AM »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: TLLK, Curryong

Offline FanDianaFancy

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,941
  • Activity:
    4%
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2017, 10:41:23 PM »
Success.
 
The following users thanked this post: Curryong

Offline TLLK

  • Forum Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,637
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Gal power!!!!!!
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2017, 04:19:26 AM »
Quote
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
:goodpost:@tiaras

After 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Curryong, tiaras, Duch_Luver_4ever

Offline Duch_Luver_4ever

  • Aristocrat
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Activity:
    34%
    • Favorite royal: Diana, Princess of Wales
Re: Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2017, 07:53:56 AM »
Failure.
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.
 
The following users thanked this post: dianab

 

Royal Insight Forum is not responsible for the content of external sites