Was Queen Elizabeth II the worst ruler in history?

Dyn said:
Elagabalus was easily the worst Emperor in Roman history. The queer shit doesn't even factor in, he managed to aggressively hatefuck literally every taboo and cultural norm Rome had to the point you have to wonder if he was just deliberately daring the people to rise up and lynch him.

GG Allin would have made a better US President than Elagabalus made a Roman Emperor.
Click to expand...
I honestly think GG Allin would have lasted longer. Elagabalus got, what, 4 years before the Praetorian Guard stabbed him?
 
No, I'm pretty sure she's not on the same level as Macias Nguema, Pol Pot or Mao.

I think Pol Pot wins the title of worst ruler in history, he literally did nothing good at all for Cambodia and murdered 1/3rd of its population. And I'm not even exaggerating, the Khmer Rouge factually did absolutely nothing beneficial for that country or its population whatsoever.
Dyn said:
Elagabalus was easily the worst Emperor in Roman history. The queer shit doesn't even factor in, he managed to aggressively hatefuck literally every taboo and cultural norm Rome had to the point you have to wonder if he was just deliberately daring the people to rise up and lynch him.

GG Allin would have made a better US President than Elagabalus made a Roman Emperor.
Click to expand...
I'd say Honorius was worse. Elagabalus ruled when the institutions and economy of the Roman Empire were functioning reasonably well so his weird behavior wasn't that destructive.

Late Antiquity is so dark and depressing compared to the Empire prior to the Crisis of the Third Century too. I hate that period of history so much I go out of my way to avoid it. Hideous art, worthless oppressive state, ignorant religious fanaticism, worthless culture, just totally disgusting.

No wonder people grew taller once it collapsed.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Casca Enjoyed It, Hoplixe, Pitbull Victim and 3 others
She really was a pants-shitting retard. Almost all of her close friends were pedophiles, she even knighted guys whos only accomplishments was fucking kids like Jimmy Saville. Very gross old woman.

All the right-wingers crying about people disrespecting the queen are cucks. The queen could have used her position to speak out about what happened in Rotherham but she probably thought it was funny that peasant children were being raped. If there's a hell below, she's gonna be there for a long time.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: AGreatDipAtAFairPrice, Hoplixe, NevskyProspekt and 4 others
No individual, even possessing despotic powers, is capable of holding back the tide of history (though of course posters dismissing Elizabeth as "powerless" are exaggerating).

PipTheAlchemist said:
Yes. She didn't even have any measurements printed on her. How the fuck were you supposed to use her as a ruler?
Click to expand...
Har har
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL
Dude it's not Crusader Kings, monarchs don't make the big decisions nor do you score points by painting the map your colour.
 
One thing then Queen Elizabeth II's death did is giving fuel to conspiracy theorists wondering the timing of her death happened 3 days before 9-11.

Meanwhile one blogger think then the Queen missed an opportunity when she traveled South Africa. https://archive.ph/iFSzR#selection-474.0-487.168

Seventy years and not once did she apologize for what her country did to the Boer women and children in Concentration camps.

In 1995 she visited the terrorist Mandela and gave him the order of Merit…yet she never once visited a Boer concentration camp or even the Women’s monument in Bloemfontein.

The fact that the Queen died is not sad at all. What is sad, is that her idiot son, Charles is now king and Horse-faced Camilla is now “Queen”...oh the embarrassment.
Click to expand...
And knowing how Zuma and co. screwed South Africa, he got a point, however lots of trigglypuffs would be triggered if she have apologized for what they did to the Boers women and kids.
 
While it's retarded you might actually have a point. The Queen is a public figurehead that pretty much stayed in the globalist approved status quo. It might have been better to put her foot down on obviously bad government decisions rather than ending her reign in UK being a third world country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magic Mirror and Pomme Poire Peche
wtfNeedSignUp said:
While it's retarded you might actually have a point. The Queen is a public figurehead that pretty much stayed in the globalist approved status quo. It might have been better to put her foot down on obviously bad government decisions rather than ending her reign in UK being a third world country.
Click to expand...
She 'couldn't have put her foot down' if she wanted to. Shy of a military coup to take back political power, there was nothing she could do about anything except ride with it.
 
No she was alright. The queen is a figurehead. In some ways she has huge power and in other ways she doesn’t - remember that to enter the square mile she needs to ask permission. There’s a clear ritual there that says something to those who would listen.
I have a lot of respect for Liz. Yes she was born into unimaginable wealth and privilege, but she’s been stoic, kept her mouth shut and done her duty to the day she died. I imagine she would have a been a lot of fun to know to the point you could have a candid chat with her. Imagine the stuff she knew, briefed weekly by 15 prime ministers.
The only time she put a foot wrong IMO was Aberfan, and she quickly realised that and made amends.
Honestly she was from a different world. Stuff upper lip, emotional restraint, and not PC.
The alternative to the monarch by is a president Blair, and that’s a very unpleasant thought. They arent perfect, but Liz was the best of the old bunch. I had a lot of respect for her and felt very sad when she died
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Casca Enjoyed It, Kerwin White and glass_houses
soy_king said:
You're living in the same world where Elagabalus, Nicholas II, and Pol Pot were rulers, and you're trying to tell us some old lady who was about as close to power as Keffals is to being a real woman is one of the worst rulers in history? fuck off with your contrarian nonsense
Click to expand...
People seriously underestimate the power of euro monarchs, but otherwise great point.
 
Suburban Bastard said:
No retard, the British empire was not going to last, she and many others recognized this and allowed nations to separate one by one peacefully, and some of them still maintain the British monarch as a head of state in a way. Compared to say France who tried to re-assert their colonial controls and got into a bloody war in indochina that ended up humiliating them. Or Portugal with their african subjects.
Click to expand...
They really should have done something to prevent Britain's former subjects from colonizing them, though. That's Liz's big failing in my book.
 
Suburban Bastard said:
No retard, the British empire was not going to last, she and many others recognized this and allowed nations to separate one by one peacefully, and some of them still maintain the British monarch as a head of state in a way. Compared to say France who tried to re-assert their colonial controls and got into a bloody war in indochina that ended up humiliating them. Or Portugal with their african subjects.
Click to expand...
Dissolving your own empire still counts as failure lmao. She couldn't even do it right like when the Romans divided themselves.
soy_king said:
Elagabalus pissed off enough people by being a degenerate retard that he got himself killed and ushered in years of instability. Nicholas destroyed a 300 year+ dynasty by being hilariously incompetent and listening to his psycho wife and her cavalcade of mystic quacks, resulting in the destruction of the Russian nation and millions of deaths. Pol Pot is self explanatory.
Click to expand...
Elegabalus didn't create the Crisis of the Third Century on his own, and Nicholas II didn't start the Russian Civil War. Hell, Nicholas was so bad for Russia that within 30 years, Russia was the second strongest nation on the planet who had turned half of Europe into puppet states. Either Nicholas or the Soviets were bad. Can't have it both ways.
soy_king said:
And this isn't including nutjobs and trainwrecks like Amin, Bokassa, Papa Doc, Hoxha, Commodus, Ferdinand VII, and so on.
Click to expand...
Finally you mention someone who was actually in charge of a major power and not a tribalist shithole and actually did have their empire implode. But even so, Ferdinand VII dealt with way worse shit from Napoleon fucking over his country for years and years and insanely violent liberal-conservative rivalries.
Mothra1988 said:
@Save the Loli is so fucking stupid he thinks England is ruled by a monarch at this point in history. Enjoy your trashcans, you fucking pedophile. lol
Click to expand...
If Britain isn't a monarchy, why is it called the United Kingdom? I mean you do know the monarchy has a fuckton of power it can legally use? Like when the Queen dismissed a Prime Minister and his government in Australia? Or made sure Ronnie Raygun got permission from her before invading Grenada? Yet the Queen never did anything major with the powers she had, which previous British rulers made great use of.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Crunk Sneedler, Mothra1988, NevskyProspekt and 1 other person
Save the Loli said:
I mean you do know the monarchy has a fuckton of power it can legally use? Like when the Queen dismissed a Prime Minister and his government in Australia?
Click to expand...
Let me expand on that for you. The only legal powers that the British Monarchy has over Australia is the ability to dissolve the Parliament and to force the Prime Minister to step down in times of constitutional crisis.
Dissolution is the term used for the action of ending a Parliament or a House of the Parliament. Under the Constitution only the Governor-General has the power to take such action. By convention the Governor-General takes this action only on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day.
Click to expand...

The Governor General, His Majesty the King's representative in Australia. may legally dissolve the Senate (the upper house of Parliament) at any time but only after receiving the request of the Australian Prime Minister to do so. In very limited circumstances under the Constitution the Governor General may perform a Double Dissolution, dissolving both the Senate and the lower house (the House of Representatives). This has happened once in Australia's history.

Dissolution does not happen for shits and giggles. It happens when the Senate and the House of Representatives are deadlocked and unable to function for months. The 'trigger' to do this is very strictly laid out in the Constitution. The Prime Minister can only request that the Governor General perform a Dissolution if the 'trigger' is strictly met, and the Governor General can only perform a Dissolution upon receiving this request. Once Dissolution is carried out, elections are held.

So technically yes, HRM can dissolve the Parliament, but only when requested by the Prime Minister, and only in extraordinary circumstances.

There is a second power that the Governor General has, and that is to force the serving Prime Minister/Premier to step down, but that can only be used when either the Prime Minister/Premier has completely lost the backing of his party but is refusing to step down, or else when the Prime Minister/Premier is refusing to request a Dissolution even though the 'trigger' has been met. Then the Governor General will then nominate a caretaker Prime Minister/Premier and elections are held immediately.

HRM cannot walk into Parliament House and say "Bugger off the lot of yers, yer bogans". He has to be asked to do so nicely by the Prime Minister. He can remove a Prime Minister and appoint a caretaker Prime Minister in his stead, but again, this can only be done within strict constitutional guidelines, and it's really just to save the Senate the hassle of calling the coppers and having the Prime Minister-in-name-only removed from the building by force.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Moosebonker
Yeah, I mostly don't pay much attention especially because trying to separate reality vs propaganda and slanted reporting can be difficult but I kind of liked the lady. She seemed fine, she'd probably have been interesting to chill with.
 
British monarchs haven't had any real significant power for a long time and most of what happened during Elizabeth II's reign put in motion before she ever ascended to the throne, any mention of empire forgets the sorry state Britain was in post-war and that it did try to hold on to or at least maintain influence over the post-independence states but just wasn't in any state to keep it up.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Magicicada_septendecula
Moja Zemlja said:
British monarchs haven't had any real significant power for a long time and most of what happened during Elizabeth II's reign put in motion before she ever ascended to the throne, any mention of empire forgets the sorry state Britain was in post-war and that it did try to hold on to or at least maintain influence over the post-independence states but just wasn't in any state to keep it up.
Click to expand...
The thing is, France did just that despite starting in a far worse situation. Insane influence of communists, took the brunt of two world wars and a Nazi occupation, lower population, weaker economy, all sorts of shit. But France has always been one of the most effective forces for neocolonialism. You'd think Britain could do the same if the Queen hadn't just sat back sipping tea for 70 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back