The tweet was about Elizabeth II and being glad that she, specifically, was dead. Every country on this list was colonized before she came into power and by that time, she was a figurehead with limited legal power. Yes, there was a Prime Minister at that time, Winston Churchill. Under her rule, she granted independence to about a dozen countries in Africa, after conflicts, of course. This is akin to a president signing a bill into law, not akin to Congress and the House who drafts and debates the law- except that a President has power of Veto. I don't know what the Queen has/had in that respect but I do know it was mutually beneficial to grant the independence.Lemons wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:47 pmBoth. The start of the slave trade by the monarch and the conflict in Kenya, a colonized country at that time.RIZZY1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:59 amOops. I accidentally quoted the wrong person but I'm sure you'll see my reply. We ARE talking about Elizabeth II, right? Not the 1700s. Of course the monarchy benefitted from it, but specifically Elizabeth II had influence but did not make those decisions.Lemons wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 9:48 pm
I thought it was common knowledge how deeply the monarchy was involved with slave trading. There wasn’t a Prime Minister during this period. There was some form of government back then but the Monarchy ruled back then.
this is recent from the Guardian that gives a brief explanation of how the slave trade benefited the monarchy exclusively
“what exactly are the monarchy’s historical links to slavery?
The royal family’s links date back to the 16th century. In 1562, John Hawkins was the first known English person to include enslaved Africans in his cargo, a journey that was approved by Elizabeth I. The enslaved Africans were traded for goods including ginger and sugar. In 1564, Hawkins arranged another voyage, for which Elizabeth I funded a vessel.
In 1660, the Royal African Company was established by the Duke of York, who later became James II, with involvement from his brother, Charles II. The Royal African Company was prolific within the slave trade; according to the Slave Voyages website, between 1672 and 1731 the Royal African Company transported more than 187,000 slaves from Africa to English colonies in North, Central and South America. Many of the enslaved Africans transported by the Royal African Company were branded “DY”, standing for Duke of York.”
This money went into the monarch’s accounts and has accumulated in the billions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-slavery
Just this year Germany agreed to return stolen jewels and art from Namibia, Tanzania and Cameroon, countries they had formerly colonized. British museums and others are returning stolen art to their rightful countries.
The monarchy refuses to acknowledge that their valuable jewelry were not gifts from the native people of India or African countries but were stolen by them and other White European colonizers. It’s time they stop benefiting from well documented crimes.
Could she have done more? Likely. But what would you have expected them to do? No country becomes an empire without stepping on necks, just like no billionaire gets there without profiting off the backs of the poor, I thought that went without saying. I understand why the tweeter feels the way they do, but I won't act like it isn't shocking to tweet what they tweeted. I think that they had every right to tweet it, I just don't think there is any point in saddling that all on a figurehead's shoulders when anyone who knows anything about the government at that time understands that she couldn't just give everything back herself.