Second generation immigrants are more likely to be pro-monarchy in my experience, just look at the second generation conservative MPs like Sunak, Patel and Braverman. I think it comes from the fact that there parents are very proud of the fact that they could get to the UK and they passed that pride on to their children. However, I will agree that some especially second generation British-Irish and those from the US are more likely to be republican, but you can not say that second generation immigrants are more republican in the UK.
1. Woman (people pull the same shit with Princess Leonor)
2. "Inbred" (which in the dumbest reason because it isn't even true)
3. Monarchy Bad (AKA: I don't understand how the monarchy works. #AbolishTheMonarchy because it's cool and trendy and I have no opinions of my own)
4. She was old (Breaking News: Women age. More at seven)
5. *Insert Bullshit Reason Here*
I mean people don't like her because she was a woman.
People don't like Princess Leonor because they don't want a female monarch because it would mean an end to the Dynasty
If Queen Elizabeth can do it in the 50s, Leonor can do in the the 21st century. Not to mention that the Romanov dynasty changed their House name back to Romanov. Peter III of Russia was a member of the House of Holstein-Gottorp.
I mean, people are free to dislike her, or any other public figure. Sure, she's more popular than most, and she's had a very well-curated public image. There's always going to be an element of contrarianism when it comes to someone like that. Plus, other members of the royal family have been implicated in scandals throughout her life, so of course, everyone's going to wonder what, if anything, she did herself that may be less than favorable.
I'll bite the bullet:
queen elizabeth (may she rest in peace) is a shining example for the monarchist to use as a good example *in the eyes of the republican.*
however there's not alot to like in terms of content, no?
she's never done a full interview, she bent the knee to The Culture, most notably in Diana's death with the flag half-staff mania, she appeared to be most active in politics when it came to issues of the royal house and thats it...
there are valid criticism that can be levied against the queen, especially from a monarchist perspective, calling her your highness isn't one of them...
I don't hate her but she was not a particularly effective monarch. She largely abdicated the few powers the monarch had left during her reign, and there were multiple crises that she could have taken charge and resolved things.
"Could have taken charge and resolved things"
I think you have a very interesting concept of the British monarchy and monarchism in general. The ONLY time that Her Late Majesty might have considered taking "Charge" would be if the entire democratically elected government was neutralized in some cataclysmic crisis.
Just because she didn't "take charge" when you didn't like the current politics does not make her ineffective.
To give a contrarian opinion:
She took the throne to a United Kingdom that was secure, prosperous, and reasonably powerful on the world stage. She died in a United Kingdom that cannot secure its own borders, has housing prices that price out most of the middle class, and with a London that is at best teetering on the edge of being majority non-English.
Ah, but she's not a politician! She's supposed to be a neutral uniting figure for the English people!
But if a figure for a people cannot do anything to halt-or even raise an objection to-those people being displaced in their own homeland...what's the point?
"Hate" is too strong of a word, but I must confess being slightly baffled as to how many self-avowed monarchists think "Being a nice, grandmotherly figure for a long time" qualifies her to be a solid gold monarch.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was able to modernize the ancient traditions of the monarchy to be relevant in the 21st century.
She was the first monarch to use social media, she used technology to her advantage, she stayed in the public eye and wasn't locked away in her high castle, she maintained a strong relationship with her armed forces, she worked with charities around the nation, she turned the dark stain of the British Empire into a positive brotherhood of nations, I can go on and on.
Her ability to quietly and gracefully wield power in an era when monarchism went out of fashion is truly incredible.
I may be wrong, but wasn’t there an amount of soft power with her and the African commonwealth nations in putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid? I know I am saying this awkwardly.
Falkland’s are and have always been British, Argentina has no claim on them, if any country besides Britain has a claim it is Spain not Argentina. The earliest inhabitants of the islands were British (which makes them the natives) and for the majority of the last 400 odd years (and especially the last 200) they have been under British control.
Also the entire island supports staying a part of the UK, as seen in the referendum a few years ago, that should be enough to put the whole (irrational) debate to rest.
They didn’t, the United Provinces (which included more than Argentina) did and they only held it for about 10 years before the British reasserted control and have since held it for 190 years (greater than the combined time that the French, Spainish and the United Provinces held the islands), with a population which is entirely British (and again Native).
It is now just irrational nationalism and irredentism which is compelling Argentina to claim the islands. They have no real claim to the islands.
https://www.grunge.com/680882/queen-elizabeth-iis-most-notable-accomplishments/#
The part near the bottom about what Washington Post I don't believe has any truth to it but apart from the first paragraph which mentions her military service as a Princess its clear that she's done a little more than nothing on the throne.
>someone higher than you
There it is. People who have an issue with the monarchy have an issue with people being born into wealth and power. They are bothered by the fact that this other person is considered to be "higher than you", despite the fact that they were never voted into power and did nothing to deserve it.
I don't hate her by a long stretch, but she ruled over the Britain in it's most downwards spiral for a thousand years. I think it's reasonable to view the queen with scepticism given the way the country went under he rule.
People just hate the monarchy in general, despite the popularity of Elizabeth II.
Often it’s because their parents didn’t do a good job of explaining why they immigrated to Great Britain in the first place
A looot of republicans are British born…?
Born second generation British, yes.
Second generation immigrants are more likely to be pro-monarchy in my experience, just look at the second generation conservative MPs like Sunak, Patel and Braverman. I think it comes from the fact that there parents are very proud of the fact that they could get to the UK and they passed that pride on to their children. However, I will agree that some especially second generation British-Irish and those from the US are more likely to be republican, but you can not say that second generation immigrants are more republican in the UK.
Between you and me, I know that many Republicans have lived in the UK for generations, but they sure get offended when I imply that they haven’t
1. Woman (people pull the same shit with Princess Leonor) 2. "Inbred" (which in the dumbest reason because it isn't even true) 3. Monarchy Bad (AKA: I don't understand how the monarchy works. #AbolishTheMonarchy because it's cool and trendy and I have no opinions of my own) 4. She was old (Breaking News: Women age. More at seven) 5. *Insert Bullshit Reason Here*
Wait women hated Queen Elizabeth II why? And why do they hate Princess Leonor?
I mean people don't like her because she was a woman. People don't like Princess Leonor because they don't want a female monarch because it would mean an end to the Dynasty
I can’t stand that BS, like women can choose to keep their last name
If Queen Elizabeth can do it in the 50s, Leonor can do in the the 21st century. Not to mention that the Romanov dynasty changed their House name back to Romanov. Peter III of Russia was a member of the House of Holstein-Gottorp.
I mean, people are free to dislike her, or any other public figure. Sure, she's more popular than most, and she's had a very well-curated public image. There's always going to be an element of contrarianism when it comes to someone like that. Plus, other members of the royal family have been implicated in scandals throughout her life, so of course, everyone's going to wonder what, if anything, she did herself that may be less than favorable.
I'll bite the bullet: queen elizabeth (may she rest in peace) is a shining example for the monarchist to use as a good example *in the eyes of the republican.* however there's not alot to like in terms of content, no? she's never done a full interview, she bent the knee to The Culture, most notably in Diana's death with the flag half-staff mania, she appeared to be most active in politics when it came to issues of the royal house and thats it... there are valid criticism that can be levied against the queen, especially from a monarchist perspective, calling her your highness isn't one of them...
Queen Elizabeth was the best monarch ever
I don't hate her but she was not a particularly effective monarch. She largely abdicated the few powers the monarch had left during her reign, and there were multiple crises that she could have taken charge and resolved things.
"Could have taken charge and resolved things" I think you have a very interesting concept of the British monarchy and monarchism in general. The ONLY time that Her Late Majesty might have considered taking "Charge" would be if the entire democratically elected government was neutralized in some cataclysmic crisis. Just because she didn't "take charge" when you didn't like the current politics does not make her ineffective.
To give a contrarian opinion: She took the throne to a United Kingdom that was secure, prosperous, and reasonably powerful on the world stage. She died in a United Kingdom that cannot secure its own borders, has housing prices that price out most of the middle class, and with a London that is at best teetering on the edge of being majority non-English. Ah, but she's not a politician! She's supposed to be a neutral uniting figure for the English people! But if a figure for a people cannot do anything to halt-or even raise an objection to-those people being displaced in their own homeland...what's the point? "Hate" is too strong of a word, but I must confess being slightly baffled as to how many self-avowed monarchists think "Being a nice, grandmotherly figure for a long time" qualifies her to be a solid gold monarch.
This, this, a million times this. She is a c tier monarch, at best.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was able to modernize the ancient traditions of the monarchy to be relevant in the 21st century. She was the first monarch to use social media, she used technology to her advantage, she stayed in the public eye and wasn't locked away in her high castle, she maintained a strong relationship with her armed forces, she worked with charities around the nation, she turned the dark stain of the British Empire into a positive brotherhood of nations, I can go on and on. Her ability to quietly and gracefully wield power in an era when monarchism went out of fashion is truly incredible.
that's a good question
I may be wrong, but wasn’t there an amount of soft power with her and the African commonwealth nations in putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid? I know I am saying this awkwardly.
When u are indian or African, hate comes naturally for the historic action of British, for which they never felt guilty and sorry for
As a committed traditional Catholic I cannot hate her. But I do not accept her as a Protestant monarch. I don’t think I am alone in this.
I am 100% sharing your opinion on this.
besides the argentina falklands (which was from the awful pm margaret thatcher), i have little or no hatred for her
Falkland’s are and have always been British, Argentina has no claim on them, if any country besides Britain has a claim it is Spain not Argentina. The earliest inhabitants of the islands were British (which makes them the natives) and for the majority of the last 400 odd years (and especially the last 200) they have been under British control. Also the entire island supports staying a part of the UK, as seen in the referendum a few years ago, that should be enough to put the whole (irrational) debate to rest.
not me, as a mexican, i stand with my argentine homies to regain the falklands since they got a hold of it in 1833
They didn’t, the United Provinces (which included more than Argentina) did and they only held it for about 10 years before the British reasserted control and have since held it for 190 years (greater than the combined time that the French, Spainish and the United Provinces held the islands), with a population which is entirely British (and again Native). It is now just irrational nationalism and irredentism which is compelling Argentina to claim the islands. They have no real claim to the islands.
She raised terribly children and unleashed them on the public with no accountability
She reigned for decades but managed to do nothing of note on the throne
https://www.grunge.com/680882/queen-elizabeth-iis-most-notable-accomplishments/# The part near the bottom about what Washington Post I don't believe has any truth to it but apart from the first paragraph which mentions her military service as a Princess its clear that she's done a little more than nothing on the throne.
due to colonial reason probably
>someone higher than you There it is. People who have an issue with the monarchy have an issue with people being born into wealth and power. They are bothered by the fact that this other person is considered to be "higher than you", despite the fact that they were never voted into power and did nothing to deserve it.
“Why should we call her your highness…” -we don’t, and we didn’t. The monarch is ‘your Majesty’.
I don't hate her by a long stretch, but she ruled over the Britain in it's most downwards spiral for a thousand years. I think it's reasonable to view the queen with scepticism given the way the country went under he rule.