Was Queen Elizabeth II the worst ruler in history?

Empires are gay and they eventually become too unwieldy to govern. They also open a civilization up to getting overrun by the die-versity it conquers. Colonies also tend to get uppity, so unless you plan invading a host country and replacing its population with your own people, it will come back to bite you in the ass.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Prune Tracy, glass_houses and SCSI
Save the Loli said:
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.
Click to expand...
And the Fourth Republic collapsed because of their attempt to maintain their empire. But why would Britain need to engage in neo-colonialism? The real value of Britain's colonies were always the dominions and Asian possessions and in those we've seen the civilising mission accomplished, economically strong and (mostly) civilised countries remain that can be dealt with as peers and Britain does enjoy good relations with them.
 
No, these are the worst rulers in history:


80df42b2be785b18829b884dc1c64673.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Magicicada_septendecula, Crunk Sneedler and glass_houses
Save the Loli said:
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.
Click to expand...
The queen isn't in control of government policy in UK, you incredible dumbass. Read a book, you white nigger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoplixe
Elizabeth didn't rubber stamp a genocide of barbarians who made up her army and then ordered them to give reparations causing them to be so pissed they sack the capital which she misunderstood to meaning they killed her pet chicken

Also the British Empire was an economic disaster and the UK did only better to get rid of the money drains of those colonies. She had no say beyond symbolic imagery.
 
Honestly queen Elizabeth and Margaret thatcher should have switched places instead in the game of birth. Thatcher if they were a queen would have been quite an iron fisted ruler who would have solidified the second British empire. Meanwhile queen Elizabeth would have made a better pm. But honestly you can't change history.
 
Not much she could do. WW2 fucked the British Empire over and the House of Windsor traditionally has had a very hands-off approach to its royal prerogatives. If you look into the abdication crisis of 1936 there was a lot more to it and Edward VIII wanted to marry an American divorcee, He was known for making political comments and the Anglo elite got lucky he started simping for Wallis Simpson so they could get rid of him.
 
Well she did reign over the dismemberment of the Empire so yeah she was pretty shit

The real Queen Elizabeth would have sent the Royal Navy to dab on all these hoes
 
draggs said:
Well she did reign over the dismemberment of the Empire so yeah she was pretty shit

The real Queen Elizabeth would have sent the Royal Navy to dab on all these hoes
Click to expand...
She had little control over that (also she was only in her late 20's/early 30's then and by some accounts felt the need to defer to older, wiser statesmen). Keep in mind the Empire by that point had largely become a financial black hole that Britain couldn't afford to maintain for any extended period of time, particularly after the economic and infrastructural devastation of the Second World War.
 
NevskyProspekt said:
She had little control over that (also she was only in her late 20's/early 30's then and by some accounts felt the need to defer to older, wiser statesmen). Keep in mind the Empire by that point had largely become a financial black hole that Britain couldn't afford to maintain for any extended period of time, particularly after the economic and infrastructural devastation of the Second World War.
Click to expand...
Earnest responses to shitposting like this are why we burgers kicked perfidious albion out 250 years ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: NevskyProspekt
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back