The Internet's Response To Queen Elizabeth's Death Is Disgusting

Shutterstock. Shutterstock Images.

The response (on Twitter, alone) to the Queen's death yesterday can be summed up with one word - despicable. I've never heard the term "bootlicking" so many times in my life, coupled with internet buzzwords from people who say that they don't care about the Royal Family, but somehow care enough to get into 20-tweet arguments with other people online about the way people are reacting to the death of the longest reigning female monarch in history. All of a sudden, everyone is a historian. Everyone fought in WW2. Everyone fought in the Revolutionary War. Everyone has been personally oppressed by Queen Elizabeth herself. You would think that she kicked down your door, called you a slur, told her son to fuck your kids, and then smashed a teapot over your head. Are the memes funny? Yes. Is anyone surprised that a 96 year old woman died? No. Yet, the entire internet seems to know every single move she's ever made, every decision, and the reason behind it. I, being heavily invested in the Pop Culture perception to the Royal Family, NOT the political side of things, feel the need to explain why we feel the way we feel.

Advertisement

The "obsession" that we have with the Royals boils down to this - they are real life royalty. Haven't you ever seen a fairytale? Haven't you ever been interested in something from a children's storybook? Isn't it…interesting, that there are actual, living people who go by "King" and "Queen" in today's world? Is it not fun to think about how a family has to walk around with self imposed rules from an ancient time? To me, they are celebrities and celebrities alone. Rich people who do rich people things. I'm interested in that. Queen Elizabeth gained her title when she was 25 years old, in 1952. For all of you who can't do math, that's in the 20th century. Anything before that, politically? Not her fault. Not her call. Nothing to do with it. Afterwards? Here is how Elizabeth's efforts to bring Britain back to a place of security and pride after the Nazi regime are viewed from The Washington Post:

Chances were that what you loved or hated wasn’t the woman herself but the institution she embodied, a sprawling $28 billion firm of inherited titles and property. The woman herself? She was a cipher by design. Her position prevented her from vocalizing opinions on politics, elections, social movements and individual people — anything of consequence, really, because modern monarchs don’t run the government even while they appear on its money.

You knew she was outdoorsy: corgis, horses, hunting expeditions. You might have read somewhere that as a teenager she served as a mechanic in World War II. She saved her wartime rations to pay for her wedding dress and thereby won the love of a nation that, in those dark days, needed a fairy tale but a practical one.

This, to me, is the legacy. This is the remarkable thing. That for 70 years the most important figure in Britain was a woman who did not do many of the things or embody many of the characteristics that society often demands women do and be. For 70 years the Commonwealth’s most important resident was an extremely average woman who was made sublime only because the people allowed her to be.

She did her work. She did her work stoically, stoutly, relentlessly, uncomplaining, for 25,000 days while her contemporaries retired or died, and her children divorced or became caught up in Jeffrey Epstein scandals, and one of her grandsons resigned and moved into Tyler Perry’s house in California and the other grandson stayed put and sired his own heirs who may one day carry on the work that his grandmother had been doing since before the invention of birth control or Barbie.

She did her work. Whatever any of us think of the monarchy, we can think something of showing up to do the work. “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service,” she once told her future subjects in a radio address broadcast on her 21st birthday. “And the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”

She insisted she was merely a humble public servant. And the most extraordinary thing is that maybe that’s what she was all along.

How is it that we, as members of the WORLD, can't see that this singular woman, not the institution she was a part of, deserves respect for doing her job? If she were a King, I can say with confidence that she wouldn't have had the same kind of fanfare. I also don't think a King would've taken the time to try and repair the image and morale of a country in the same way a Queen would. Being a woman in power was, and still is, an impressive feat. She wouldn't have inspired girls all over the world to shoot for the moon. Don't settle on being a princess, do your job, and become the fucking Queen. 

Washington Post not for you? How about we hear from Tucker Carlson by way of the Daily Mail:

Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson hit back on Thursday night against critics who called Queen Elizabeth a 'colonizer' and celebrated her death - insisting that the British Empire was something to be proud of, and calling it the most 'benign' empire the world had ever seen.

Carlson spoke out after the queen's death was celebrated by some opinion writers, with one promising to dance on her grave and another describing her 70-year reign as 'devastating.'

While millions around the world were mourning the death of the 96-year-old monarch, provocateurs were within hours of her death mocking the outpouring of grief - in some of the most esteemed publications in the United States.

One Pennsylvania professor even said she hoped the queen's final hours of pain would 'be excruciating. Carlson described them as 'ghouls' and said they were misguided.

'The British Empire was not perfect, but it was far more humane than any other ever,' Carlson said. 'It was an impressive place run by impressive people. We will see many empires going forward, but we will never see one so benign.'

'When the U.S. government withdrew from Afghanistan after 20 years we left behind air strips, shipping containers, and guns,' Carlson said. When the British pulled out of India, they left behind an entire civilization: a language, a legal system, schools, churches, public buildings. All still in use today.'

Right. So, let's talk about each argument I've seen online:

"She was a colonizer!" She ruled in a post-colonial time, yes, for an institution that, in centuries past, colonized countries. If we're throwing stones about colonization before the 1900s, the US better pipe the fuck down. Elizabeth inherited an empire in crisis, as per History.com:

At the height of the British empire, it was estimated that one in every four people was a British subject. When Elizabeth began her reign, Britain had more than 70 territories overseas. But she inherited an empire in crisis. The government had already begun to recognize that it would need to give more power to colonies in order to survive, and during the 1960s it gave up colony after colony in an atmosphere of revolt and insurrection. From Africa to Asia, Britain withdrew from colonies like Kenya and Malaysia.

At her death, Elizabeth was the monarch of just 16 countries known as commonwealth realms. “The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past,” she said in 1953, perhaps anticipating the end of the British empire. “It is an entirely new conception, built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace. To that new conception of an equal partnership of nations and races I shall give myself heart and soul every day of my life.”

Next argument. "Look what she did to the Irish! You can't call yourself Irish anymore if you support the Queen!" Well, actually:

When Elizabeth took the throne, Northern Ireland had been ruled by Protestant unionists who favored remaining part of the United Kingdom for decades. But in 1968, tensions over whether Northern Ireland should become part of the Republic of Ireland, the sovereign state with which it shares an island, boiled over. During the Troubles, the 30-year conflict that followed, Elizabeth watched Northern Ireland explode into a seemingly endless cycle of violence marked by bombings (including the IRA assassination of her second cousin, Lord Louis Mountbatten), riots and guerrilla warfare. Meanwhile, the queen visited Northern Ireland in 1977 despite protests and threats.

Finally, in 1998, the conflict ended with the Good Friday Agreement. In 2011, Elizabeth spoke publicly about the Troubles during a visit to Dublin. “To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy,” she said—a near-apology that marked the monarchy’s desire to move forward. And when she shook hands with ex-IRA leader Martin McGuinness in 2012, it was seen as the beginning of a new era of tenuous peace between monarchists and separatists.

And what about "She RAISED A PEDOPHILE!" 

This one makes the least sense to me. Is it her fault that her son is a pervert? Did she tell him to get mixed up in a pedophile ring and have sex with underage girls? No. What did she do when she found out? She made sure the girl in question, was compensated for the awful things that happened to her. 16.3 million dollars, to be exact. Is this the first case in the entire world where a settlement was reached? Sure, Andrew isn't rotting in a jail cell, but isn't he imprisoned for the rest of this life? Everyone knows he's a pedophile. Everyone hates him. He'll never be taken seriously again, forever marked with the most damning scarlet letter you can get. What was the Queen supposed to do? Honestly, what would people have preferred this mother do for her son? Pull a Barty Crouch and sentence him to death? There are parents who have bailed their kids out of jail when they've MURDERED PEOPLE. Don't we as a country idolize the Kennedys? She took care of a terrible family situation in the only way she could. I promise you, Andrew isn't running around as a "free man" after his actions. I don't even know if he can walk down the street without the possibility of someone knocking his lights out. For people wondering if this is taxpayer money paying for his sins? I doubt it. The Queen has personal wealth and income well outside of the Sovereign Grant and the Privy Purse, and all of their expenses taken from taxpayer money are publicly documented. We don't see a, "Andrew's Court Settlement" line on the bank statement.

Still feeling sour? Let's bring it in house. Large's well written blog yesterday (while rude) had some crucial points that I think people are overlooking:

Officially, the queen had to be neutral in all political matters and could not vote. Her role in the UK government was purely ceremonial… She opened each session of Parliament in person and had regular visits with the Prime Minister. 

Any legislation passed by Parliament had to get the Queen’s stamp of approval (known as Royal Assent) before becoming law… But that’s just another ceremonial formality because no monarch has refused to give Royal Assent since 1707. So I just did the math, and that means it has been over 300 years of an inbred privileged family doing ABSOLUTELY nothing but swimming in wealth and wearing goofy costumes, and all on the taxpayers' dime… The royals are essentially the world’s highest-paid mascots.  

Am I a British taxpayer? No. Would it be annoying to see the mascots of the UK walking around with all of this wealth, while I'm heating up baked beans over a dumpster fire? For sure. Without a doubt. Did Elizabeth control and decide where the tax money was used? No. As discussed above, her "stamp of approval" on all government dealings was purely ceremonial. Do we, as citizens of the United States, even know what our taxes are being used for? Don't we blame the Presidents, Governors and Mayors for every tax dollar we pay? Maybe they aren't shoved in our faces as jewels and fine silks, but aren't they OVERWHELMINGLY mismanaged? A resounding yes. 

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that as usual, we are punishing a singular person for the behavior of their ancestors, and even more absurd, for the government's actions. Elizabeth was born to be a scapegoat, a figurehead. A person to blame for the good and the bad. Chastising individuals who were born into a less than ideal situation, who tried to make the best of it for everyone involved and move as far away from the bad as possible, that's the way of the world! To me, that doesn't take away from a woman doing her fucking job. Elizabeth can be both; a victim of her circumstance, and an inspirational figurehead who showed girls like me, that if you don't like the world you were given, with time, you can change it. If you want to hate anybody, hate the British Government. Don't hate the woman who absorbed all of the hate, ridicule and embarrassment that it forced upon her. 

Advertisement

Paris Hilton said it best.