They did. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor
4 Likes
5 Likes
I just thought of something.
How are transphobes on TERF Island going to cope with the sudden change of pronouns in the national antherm?
23 Likes
But, waitâŠCharles looks nothing like Freddie Mercury!!
7 Likes
They should coronate the royal corgis instead 
4 Likes
3 Likes
12 Likes
Alex Jones.
4 Likes
Ahem. Check the blood for morphine and cocaine.
5 Likes
4 Likes
9 Likes
17 Likes
The media just canât shut up about this even though thereâs nothing more to say about it until they actually put her in the ground
Meanwhile theyâre also way over their front wheels âreportingâ things Charles may or may not do that havenât happened yet
8 Likes
She should have done a car-repair show on public television, like Julia Child with a wrench
5 Likes
6 Likes
Oh forâŠ
What ânewsâ is next, the family squabble over her eccentric toenail collection?
3 Likes
Some things need to be said in the midst of left-ish clichĂ© spouting re Elizabeth II Râs passing.
1. You cannot separate the queen as âindividualâ from âmonarchyâ. We have no access to the âindividualâ. Our only understanding of her, our only lens through which to view her was and is the institution she represented very ably. Lauding that very ability and the âdutyâ that we should apparently celebrate separately from the monarchy and the Crown makes no sense. I repeat: you have NO knowledge of her as a person, you cannot separate her from the institution (âwhatever you think about the monarchyâ) and, frankly, I doubt she would wish you to. Her âdutyâ was to embody the Crown. If you think she did it well, then itâs UTTERLY INCOHERENT to separate her âdutyâ and what the Crown does.
2. No, you cannot âmourn the queen but not her empireâ. Again, this is someone who came to the throne when India was independent but most other British colonies were not. 1952 was the year of a BRUTAL counter-insurgency in Kenya where she received the news of her fatherâs passing. You cannot, again, conveniently separate her from the horrific violence being enacted in the name of the British Crown even at the very moment she ascended the throne.
3. No, she didnât oversee a kindly decolonisation initiated by Britain any more than Britain should be known for abolition rather than enslavement. She was head of state as Britain was forced, colony by colony, to abandon the imperial project though not without tremendous violence in many places including Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus. (Ireland too, though differently). On the contrary, she embraced the face-saving fudge of the âCommonwealthâ, made it her personal passion (to the extent that the Crown can be âpersonalâ) and ensured her son would remain head of this bonkers organisation, full of postcolonial elites, kindly maternal and paternal figures respectively.
4. The enormous private wealth of her family and the enormous assets of the Crown cannot be separated from the projects of enslavement and colonisation. Period. Start an inquiry into how this wealth came to be and it will become apparent. Yes, both the Crown and individual monarchs have benefitted from enslavement and expropriation.
5. Please stop saying âwhatever you think about the monarchyâ followed by vapid clichĂ©s about duty and grace. The monarchy represents the right of the wealthy and privileged, a small number, to rule. That said, those who announce themselves republicans should acknowledge that it is perfectly possibly, indeed currently normal, to have elected heads of state and heads of government while maintaining precisely as unequal and grotesque a system as any monarchy. Abolish monarchy by all means, but that is meaningless without abolishing billionaires and trillionares and the plutocracy that rules across the world, whether formally monarchist or not.
19 Likes
To be fair, I do hope that theyâre treated well, but I didnât think theyâd just throw them out on the streetâŠ
3 Likes
